HAGBERG et al v. LYNCH FORD

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM ORDER that the 34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal is denied. Signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti on 1/3/2018. (mps)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
KARL HAGBERG, for himself and as
:
parent of E.H., A.H., and C.H., and ZIA
:
SHAIKH, for himself and as parent of M.S., :
S.S., and H.S.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, CHRIS
:
CHRISTIE, in his official capacity,
:
CHRISTOPHER PORINO, in his official :
capacity, MICHELLE M. SMITH, in her
:
official capacity, STUART RABNER, in his :
official capacity, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-1189-BRM-LHG

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THIS MATTER is opened to the Court by Plaintiff Karl Hagberg’s Motion to File a Late
Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 34.) For the reasons set forth below, Hagberg’s Motion is DENIED.
On September 26, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28)
and co-plaintiff Zia Shaikh timely filed a Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2017 (ECF No. 29).
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(a). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, Hagberg had
fourteen days from that date, until October 31, 2017, to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(3). Nearly two months later, Hagberg filed this motion to file a late notice of appeal, stating
only that, in October 2017, he “was so frustrated with his attempts in state and federal court to
vindicate his parental rights that he initially declined to appeal” and “has since decided that he
would like to join Mr. Shaikh in the Appeal to the Third Circuit,” which he argues would not delay
the appeal or prejudice defendants. (ECF No. 34 at 1-2.)

The Rule 4 permits the District Court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal in two
circumstances: (i) when “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). Because more than thirty days have passed since Hagberg’s
notice would have been due, he is required to show good cause or excusable neglect for the late
filing. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). He has shown neither. Hagberg’s frustration with the judicial
system decision does not justify his delay.
Accordingly,
IT IS on this 3rd day of January 2018,
ORDERED that Hagberg’s Motion to File a Late Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 34) is
DENIED.

/s/
Brian R. Martinotti
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE