Cureton v. Vance et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for time extension re 27 Notice of Appeal filed by Jamil Cureton (per Sixth Circuit's remand Order 29 ) Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMIL CURETON,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16-CV-12628
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
ANTHONY VANCE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION
Pro se Plaintiff Jamil Cureton filed an untimely notice of appeal which
the Sixth Circuit remanded to this court to consider in the first instance
whether Plaintiff’s time for filing a notice of appeal should be extended
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Plaintiff alleges cause exists for his
untimeliness because as a pro se litigant, he was unaware of the filing
deadline until he conducted a Google search sometime after the deadline
had passed, and was unaware that he could proceed without paying the
filing fee. Defendants oppose the time extension sought on the grounds
that Plaintiff has not shown “excusable neglect or good cause” as required
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Plaintiff’s only basis for the time
extension is his ignorance of the law.

-1-

“Excusable neglect has been held to be a strict standard which is met
only in extraordinary cases.” Nicholson v. City of Warren, 467 F.3d 525,
526 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not demonstrated any extraordinary
circumstances beyond his power of control which would justify his late
filing. “Ignorance of the rules or mistakes in construing the rules do not
usually constitute excusable neglect.” Id. (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993)). Even “mistakes
by those who proceed without counsel are not necessarily excusable.” Id.
at 527 (citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)). Here,
Plaintiff has not offered any reason, other than his own lack of diligence, for
failing to meet the deadline for filing his notice of appeal. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion for a time extension to file his notice of appeal (Doc. 27) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2018
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 10, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Jamil Cureton, 801 East Woodcroft Parkway, Apt. 1831,
Durham, NC 27713.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-2-