Levesque v. Clinton County Correctional Facility
Filing
189
DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 179 ), construed as a timely request under Fed. R. App. R. 4(a)(5) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the September Order (Dkt. No. 171 ) is GRANTED; and 2. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 5/19/2014. (ptm) (Copy served on plaintiff by regular mail at last known address and Northwest State Correctional Facility in Swanton, VT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDRE R. LEVESQUE,
Plaintiff,
9:10-CV-0787
(DNH/DEP)
v.
CLINTON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
ANDRE R. LEVESQUE
Plaintiff, pro se
LEMIRE JOHNSON LLC
Attorney for Defendant Clinton County
P.O. Box 2485
2534 Route 9
Malta, NY 12020
GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ.
APRIL J. LAWS, ESQ.
MARY ELIZABETH KISSANE, ESQ.
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
This action was filed by pro se plaintiff Andre R. Levesque pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
ยง 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act asserting claims arising out of his confinement
at the Clinton County Jail. See Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiff paid the filing fee for this
action in November 2010. Defendant Clinton County filed an answer to the complaint in
October 2011 after service of process. See Dkt. No. 22.
In June 2013, the Report-Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge David E.
Peebles (Dkt. No. 138) was adopted and plaintiff's remaining ADA claim was dismissed as a
sanction for his consistent and burdensome practice of filing threatening, vexatious, and
frivolous submissions in this case. Dkt. No. 153 (the "June Order").1 Judgment was duly
entered on June 26, 2013. Dkt. No. 154. In a Decision and Order filed September 16, 2013,
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the June Order was denied. Dkt. No. 171 (the
"September Order").
On December 4, 2013, a notice of appeal was received from plaintiff for filing in this
action, along with a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and two letters requesting
that his original submissions be returned to him. Dkt. Nos. 177-80.2 The notice of appeal is
dated October 29, 2013 and is addressed to the "United States District Court" and the
"Second Circuit Court of Appeals." Dkt. No. 179 at 5.3 Submitted with the notice of appeal
was a copy of a November 14, 2013 letter addressed to plaintiff by the Second Circuit
Administrative Manager returning plaintiff's "Motion to waive the $455.00 filing fee" (not
attached) and advising plaintiff that if he was "filing a new notice of appeal it must be filed
with the District Court of New York and not the U.S. Court of Appeals." Dkt. No. 179-1.4
By Mandate issued April 3, 2014, the Second Circuit concluded that plaintiff's notice of
appeal was not timely filed. Dkt. No. 184. The Second Circuit also concluded that the notice
of appeal "dated October 2013 could be construed as a timely motion for an extension of
1
In a Decision and Order filed January 28, 2013, defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was
granted, dismissing all of his claims other than his claim arising under Title II of the ADA. See Dkt. No. 89.
2
Plaintiff's request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and his requests for the return of his original
submissions were denied on December 6, 2013. Dkt. No. 182.
3
This first page of this submission bears a "Received" stamp with the date of November 4, 2013. Dkt.
No. 179 at 1. However, the recipient of the submission is not identified. Id.
4
This transmittal letter references only "Levesque v. Clinton" and does not include a case number. Dkt.
No. 179-1 at 1. It is noted that plaintiff's request to appeal in forma pauperis, dated October 29, 2013 and
entitled "Motion for the Court to waive the 455 filing fee," also bears a "Received" stamp with the date of
November 4, 2013. See Dkt. No. 180.
2
time," and remanded the case to the undersigned "to consider whether Appellant's notice of
appeal constituted a motion for an extension of time and, if so, whether the motion should be
granted." Id.5
Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides with certain
exceptions not relevant in this action, that a notice of appeal in a civil action must be filed
with the district court clerk within 30 days "after entry of the judgment or order appealed
from." Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).6 Rule 4(a)(5) states that upon a showing of "excusable
neglect or good cause" a district court may extend the time for filing an appeal.7 A motion
requesting such an extension must be filed no later than thirty days after the expiration of the
appeal period set forth in Rule 4(a). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i).
In this case, the thirty day period for filing an appeal from the September Order
expired on October 16, 2013. The period for requesting an extension of the appeal period
expired thirty days later, on November 15, 2013. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i).
Here, it is found that plaintiff's notice of appeal may reasonably be construed as a
request for an extension of the appeal period. Therefore, it must be determined whether that
request was timely filed in advance of November 15, 2013 and, if so, whether "excusable
neglect or good cause" exists for the requested extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).8
5
In light of the remand, the Second Circuit did not decide plaintiff/appellant's motion for leave to appeal
in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 184 at 1.
6
An appeal mistakenly filed in the court of appeals is sent by that court to the district court for filing and
is considered filed in the district court on the date it was received in the court of appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 4(d).
7
Rule 4 further provides that "[n]o extension . . . may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14
days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later." Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(5)(C).
8
Defendants' counsel strongly opposes an extension of the appeal period. Dkt. No. 187.
3
Under the "prison mailbox rule" the date of filing is deemed to be the date that the
prisoner-plaintiff delivered his appeal to a prison guard for mailing to the court. See Houston
v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (a pro se prisoner "files" his federal notice of appeal when
he submits his papers to prison authorities for forwarding to the circuit court); Burfeindt v.
Postupack, 509 F. App'x 65, 66 (2d Cir. 2013) (noting that the mailbox rule has been
extended beyond notices of appeal). Absent evidence to the contrary, courts presume that
the prisoner gave his submission to prison officials for mailing on the date that he signed it.
See Reid v. Donald, No. 9:12-CV-0533 (TJM/DEP), 2013 WL 5437638, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Sept.
27, 2013) (citing cases).
Here, while more than thirty days elapsed between the date plaintiff signed his notice
of appeal and the date it was received by this Court, there is no evidence in the record which
suggests that he did not submit it for mailing on that date or at the latest, on November 15,
2013. Thus, it is found that plaintiff's request to extend the appeal period was timely under
the prison mailbox rule.
In determining whether a party seeking an extension of the appeal period pursuant to
Rule 4(a)(5) has made the requisite showing of "excusable neglect or good cause," district
courts consider four factors: (1) the risk of prejudice to the nonmoving party; (2) the length of
the delay and its potential prejudice upon the judicial proceeding; (3) the reason for the
delay; and (4) whether the moving party has acted in good faith. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.
v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The most important factor is the
reason for the delay. See id.; see also Weinstock v. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, 16
F.3d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1994). In this regard, courts have found that difficulties frequently
4
encountered by inmates, such as prison transfers, confinement in segregated housing units,
and/or limited access to legal materials, especially when considered in light of their pro se
status, constitute "good cause" for purposes of Rule 4(a)(5). See Stephanski v.
Superintendent of Upstate Corr. Fac., No. 02-CV-0562, 2007 WL 210399, at *1 (W.D.N.Y.
Jan. 25, 2007) (citing cases).
Here, plaintiff states that in July 2013 he was experiencing severe mental distress and
was transferred to Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center ("MHFPC"), where he remained
until approximately October 17, 2013. Dkt. No. 179 at 2.9 In addition to being impaired by
his mental illness, plaintiff states that he had no access to legal materials at MHFPC. Id.
Upon due consideration, it is found that plaintiff's notice of appeal, construed as a
request for an extension of the appeal period, was timely filed, that he has demonstrated
good cause for the requested extension, and that the brief delay occasioned by an extension
of the appeal period is not reasonably likely to materially prejudice this proceeding.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff's notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 179), construed as a timely request under Fed.
R. App. R. 4(a)(5) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the September
Order (Dkt. No. 171) is GRANTED; and
2. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Plaintiff returned to the Clinton County Jail. Plaintiff has since been released from custody.
5
Dated: May 19, 2014
Utica, New York.
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?