McKnight v. Ladner
Filing
41
ORDER denying 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 38 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 39 Motion for Certificate of Appealability Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on 6/26/2019 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES DOUGLAS McKNIGHT, #38913
VERSUS
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-118(DCB)(JCG)
WARDEN BRIAN LADNER
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Petitioner James Douglas
McKnight (McKnight”)’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice
of Appeal (docket entry 34), Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(docket entry 38), and Motion for Certificate of Appealability
(docket entry 39).
Having carefully considered the Petitioner’s motions and the
Respondent’s Response in Opposition to the Petitioner’s Motion for
Time to File Notice of Appeal (docket entry 40), the Court finds as
follows:
Petitioner McKnight filed his federal habeas petition in this
cause on September 5, 2017 (docket entry 1).
Pursuant to this
Court’s Order to Answer filed October 11, 2017 (docket entry 6), as
well as two extensions requested and granted to the Respondent,
counsel for the Respondent timely filed an Answer to the petition
on March 9, 2018, addressing the forty-one (41) claims raised
therein (docket entry 10).
Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo
issued his Report and Recommendation on February 11, 2019 (docket
entry 24).
On April 2, 2019, this Court entered an Order Adopting Report
and
Recommendation
and
a
separate
Final
Judgment
dismissing
McKnight’s federal habeas petition with prejudice (docket entries
31 and 32).
McKnight has now filed a motion for time to file a
notice of appeal (docket entry 34)1, and this Court deferred ruling
on the motion and ordered Respondent to file a response by June 14,
2019 (docket entry 36).
As
noted
above,
this
Court
entered
its
Final
Judgment
dismissing McKnight’s petition on April 2, 2019 (docket entries 31
and 32).
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a
notice of appeal must be filed within “30 days after entry of the
judgment.”
Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1).
McKnight did not file a notice
of appeal within the time frame allotted by Rule 4.
However, on
May 8, 2019, McKnight filed a motion requesting an extension of
time to file a notice of appeal because his “access to the prison
law library is limited to once per week,” and he contends that the
extension is necessary to “thoroughly research applicable case law
....”
(docket entry 34).
With respect to a motion for extension of time, Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A) provides as follows:
(A) The district court may extend the time to file a
notice of appeal if:
1
On June 12, 2019, McKnight filed a Notice of Appeal, a
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Motion for Certificate
of Appealability with this Court. See docket entries 37, 38 and
39.
2
(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after
the time prescribed by this Rule(4)(a) expires; and
(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed
before or during the 30 days after the time
prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party
shows excusable neglect or good cause.
Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(A).
In this case, McKnight’s notice of appeal was due in this
Court on or before May 2, 2019 (thirty days after entry of this
Court’s Order and Final Judgment dismissing McKnight’s claims).
McKnight has satisfied subsection (i) because he filed his motion
for an extension of time within thirty (30) days of the expiration
of the deadline.
Thus, the issue before this Court is whether
McKnight has shown either excusable neglect or good cause, which
would permit this Court to extend the time for filing an appeal
under this Rule.
The Respondent urges the Court to find that
McKnight has failed to do so.
The Advisory Committee Notes for the 2002 Amendments to Rule
4 explain that “excusable neglect” and “good cause” are distinctly
different standards:
The excusable neglect standard applies in situations in
which there is fault; in such situations, the need for an
extension is usually occasioned by something within the
control of the movant. The good cause standard applies
in situations in which there is no fault – excusable or
otherwise. In such situations, the need for an extension
is usually occasioned by something that is not within the
control of the movant.
Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.App.P. 4, Subdivision (a) (5) (A)
(ii), 2002 Amendments.
3
The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the term
“excusable neglect” to allow courts “where appropriate, to accept
late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as
well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control.”
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S.
380, 388 (1993).2
When evaluating excusable neglect under Rule
4(a)(5), the Fifth Circuit relies on the following standard set
forth by the United States Supreme Court:
The determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking
into
account
all
of
the
relevant
circumstances
surrounding the party’s omission. These include ... the
danger of prejudice ..., the length of the delay and its
potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for
the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable
control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in
good faith.
Stotter v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio, 508 F.3d 812, 820 (5th Cir.
2007)(quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).
“The ordinary meaning of
‘neglect’ is to give little attention or respect’ to a matter, or,
closer
to
the
point
for
our
purposes,
‘to
unattended to especially through carelessness.”
leave
undone
or
Pioneer, 507 U.S.
at 388 (quoting Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 791
(1983)(brackets omitted).
The United States Supreme Court has
2
Although Pioneer, supra, involved Bankruptcy Rule
9006(b)(1), the United States Supreme Court drew on a number of
legal provisions containing the “excusable neglect” standard.
See id. at 392-94. The Fifth Circuit imported Pioneer’s analysis
of “excusable neglect” into non-bankruptcy contexts, including
Rule 4(a). See Midwest Employers Cas. Co. v. Williams, 161 F.3d
877, 880 n.6 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Halicki v. Louisiana
Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1998).
4
further
instructed
that
a
misinterpretation
of
unambiguous
procedural rules usually goes against finding excusable neglect.
See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392.
In Tuesno v. Jackson, 5:08-cv-302(DCB)(JMR), 2013 WL 685928,
at *2 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 25, 2013), this Court recognized that the
most important of the Pioneer factors is the “reason for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant.
Id., citing Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d
457, 463 (8th Cir. 2000)).
The good cause standard, on the other hand, is applicable “in
situations in which there is no fault – excusable or otherwise.”
Advisory
Committee
Notes
to
(a)(5)(A)(ii), 2002 Amendments.
Fed.R.App.P.
4,
Subdivision
In those situations, an extension
of time is necessary because of something that was entirely beyond
the control of the moving party, such as where “the Postal Service
fails to deliver a notice of appeal.”
Id.
This Court has also recognized that “[f]iling a notice of
appeal is an easy task.”
See Tuesno, 2013 WL 685928, at *4.
In
fact, “[t]he Rule 3(c) Notice of Appeal is perhaps the simplest
instrument known to federal procedure, and Rule 3© is simple and
explicit, and easily complied with” and does not require assistance
from legal services or attorneys, as a simple letter stating an
intent to appeal is sufficient.
Id. (citing Haney v. Mizell Mem.
Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1473 n.5 (11th Cir. 1984)(internal quotations
5
omitted)).
McKnight has failed to show how his weekly access to the law
library impeded his ability to timely file a notice of appeal.
Therefore, the Petitioner has clearly failed to state a basis upon
which this Court can properly extend the time for filing an appeal
under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure because he
cannot show the required excusable neglect or good cause.
See
Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(A).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the
Court
Respondent
finds
that
the
has
established
that
the
Petitioner’s motion for time to file an appeal in the abovecaptioned cause should be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner James
Douglas McKnight’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of
Appeal (docket entry 34), Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(docket entry 38), and Motion for Certificate of Appealability
(docket entry 39) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 24th day of June, 2019.
David C. Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?