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)

Download PDF
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-

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?