Taylor v. Supreme Court of the State of New York

Filing 6

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Extension of Time: For the attached reasons, Taylor's motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is denied, and his request for copies of court documents is granted. The court repeats that it has certif ied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from its October 8, 2013 Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith and that in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to serve the following on plaintiff and note service on the docket by November 20, 2013: (1) a copy of this Order, (2) the docket sheet in this action, (3) the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on August 13, 2013, and (4) the docket sheet in Taylor v. Holmes, No. 12-cv-4352 (DLI). SO ORDERED by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/18/2013. (Tsai, Denise)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------X
MICHAEL TAYLOR,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff,

-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
13-CV-4621 (KAM)(RLM)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK,
Defendant.
----------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Michael Taylor (“Taylor”) filed a
motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal in the
above-captioned case, and also requests that the court provide
him with copies of documents filed in relation to his petition
for writ of habeas corpus and in a prior case.

For the reasons

set forth below, the motion for extension of time is denied and
the request for copies of documents is granted.
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2013, Taylor filed a habeas petition
naming the Supreme Court of the State of New York as respondent.
On October 8, 2013, the court issued a Memorandum and Order
denying Taylor’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
dismissing without prejudice any claims brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.

(ECF No. 4, Mem. & Order dated 10/8/13.)

Petitioner

now seeks to appeal the court’s Memorandum and Order.

1

By a

motion dated November 6, 2013, petitioner requested an extension
of time to file an appeal, explaining that he failed to timely
file a notice of appeal because he “is not conferred with his
constitutional right to have access to the courts that will
allow [him] to file a meaningful appeal in this action.”

(ECF

No. 5, Mot. for Extension dated 11/6/13 and filed 11/12/13.)

In

addition, Taylor submitted a letter asking the court to provide
him with copies of the docket sheet in the above-caption action,
the petition for habeas corpus that he filed, and the docket
sheet of another action captioned “Michael Taylor v. Christopher
Holmes.”

(Id. at 2.)
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

4(a)(1), an appellant is required to file a notice of appeal
with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the
judgment or order appealed from.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

The

district court, upon motion for extension of time, may allow a
party more time to file a notice of appeal if that party shows
“excusable neglect or good cause.”
4(a)(5)(A)(ii).

Fed. R. App. P.

Here, because the court’s Memorandum and Order

and the Judgment were entered on October 8, 2013, Taylor was
required to file a notice of appeal by November 7, 2013.
Taylor’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of

2

appeal was dated November 6, 2013 and filed by the district
clerk on November 12, 2013.
Under the “prison mailbox rule,” papers filed by an
incarcerated pro se party are deemed filed as of the date the
party gave the papers to prison authorities for mailing.
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988) (holding that pro
se prisoner’s notice of appeal was filed at the time he
delivered it to prison authorities for mailing to the court
clerk).

Although the Second Circuit has extended the prison

mailbox rule to other filings, including habeas petitions,
administrative complaints, and civil complaints, see Burfeindt
v. Postupack, 509 F. App’x 65, 66-67 (2d Cir. 2013), the Circuit
has yet to decide whether the prison mailbox rule applies to
motions for extensions of time to file a notice of appeal.
Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that
the motion for extension of time is timely under the prison
mailbox rule, Taylor has not shown excusable neglect or good
cause to justify an extension of time.

In his motion, Taylor’s

only explanation for not filing a notice of appeal within the
time required is that he “is not conferred with his
constitutional right to have access to the courts.”
Extension at 1.)

(Mot. for

This brief and vague assertion does not

satisfy the showing required under Federal Rule of Appellate

3

Procedure 4(a)(5)(A), especially considering that the Clerk of
Court mailed Taylor an appeals packet with instructions about
how to file a notice of appeal, and that Taylor, who filed at
least ten prior habeas petitions (see 10/8/13 Mem. and Order at
2-3), does not face the usual disadvantages that pro se
petitioners face in navigating court procedure for the first
time.

Accordingly, the court denies Taylor’s motion for

extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
In addition, although the court, in its October 8,
2013 Memorandum and Order, certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that any appeal from its order would not be taken in
good faith and that in forma pauperis status is denied for
purpose of an appeal, the court is mindful of the fact that
Taylor is incarcerated and may not have ready access to court
filings.

The court thus grants Taylor’s request for a copy of

the docket sheet in this action, a copy of the petition for writ
of habeas corpus filed on August 13, 2013, and a copy of the
docket sheet in the action captioned Taylor v. Holmes, No. 12cv-4352 (DLI).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Taylor’s motion for
extension of time to file a notice of appeal is denied, and his

4

request for copies of court documents is granted.

The court

repeats that it has certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal from its October 8, 2013 Memorandum and Order
would not be taken in good faith and that in forma pauperis
status is denied for purpose of an appeal.
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

Coppedge v. United

The Clerk of Court is

respectfully requested to serve the following on plaintiff and
note service on the docket by November 20, 2013: (1) a copy of
this Order, (2) the docket sheet in this action, (3) the
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on August 13, 2013, and
(4) the docket sheet in Taylor v. Holmes, No. 12-cv-4352 (DLI).
SO ORDERED.
_________/s/_________________
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
Dated: November 18, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

5