Alexander v. Oakland, County of et al
Filing
7
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 6 Motion to Reopen Time to Appeal. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
No. 13-cv-11908
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
OAKLAND COUNTY FRIEND
OF THE COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REOPEN TIME TO APPEAL
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on January 10, 2014
PRESENT:Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Chief Judge
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff William Alexander’s
December 23, 2013 Motion to Reopen Time to Appeal the Court’s May 28, 2013
Summary Dismissal of his Complaint. In this unsigned, unverified motion, Plaintiff
maintains that he did not receive notice of the summary dismissal until he contacted the
Defendant Oakland County Friend of the Court (the “FOC”) on some unspecified date,
and was informed by the FOC that his lawsuit had been summarily dismissed on May 28,
2013. As evidence of this, Plaintiff attached only an undated second page of what
presumably is a letter from the FOC Director.1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d) provides that “[l]ack of notice of the entry [of an order or
judgment] does not affect the time for appeal or relieve -- or authorize the court to relieve
-- a party from failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure (4)(a).”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) permits a district court to reopen the time to file an appeal
for a period of 14 days, but only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice of entry of
the judgment or order within 21 days after entry;
(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is
entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice, whichever
is earlier; and
(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.
Fed. R. App. P. (a)(6) (emphasis added).
In this case, the Court does not find that all of these conditions are satisfied. First,
the record of this case shows that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the Order of
Summary Dismissal by mail on May 28, 2013 at the address he provided on his pleadings
and that mailing was not returned to the Court as incorrectly addressed or was otherwise
undeliverable. The correctness of the address is further evidenced by the Court’s service
of the Order granting his application to proceed in forma pauperis just five days earlier,
on May 23, 2013, the receipt of which Plaintiff does not dispute. Plaintiff’s unsigned,
unverified assertion that he never received the copy of the Order of Summary Dismissal
is insufficient evidence of non-receipt in light of the certification of service appearing on
1
Presumably, the date would appear on the first page of this correspondence.
the Court’s record.
However, even if the Court were to accept Plaintiff’s unverified assertion of
untimely receipt of notice, Plaintiff’s motion is made well beyond 180 days after entry of
the Order of Summary Dismissal, which would establish November 28, 2013 as the
outermost deadline for moving to reopen the time for appeal in this case.2 Plaintiff did
not file his Motion to Reopen Time for Appeal until December 23, 2013, i.e., nearly one
month after the deadline for doing so.
Because Plaintiff’s Motion was not timely filed,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Time for Appeal
[Dkt. # 6] is DENIED.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: January 10, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on January 10, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, (313) 234-5135
2
From the excerpt from FOC letter provided by Plaintiff as “evidence” of
untimely receipt of notice, it appears that Plaintiff must have received this letter some
time after October 25, 2013. However, as Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B) sets the deadline for
moving to reopen time for appeal as “180 days after entry of the order” or “14 days after
receiving notice of the entry,” whichever is earlier, November 28, 2013 (180 days after
entry of the order) is the latest date on which he could have filed his Motion to Reopen
Time for Appeal, even if Plaintiff received the FOC letter after that date.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?