Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 38

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's motion 36 for an extension of time to appeal from this Court's November 7, 2019 Decision and Order is denied, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 9/25/2024. (KAH)This was mailed to: Plaintiff Willie K. Sanders.Clerk to Follow up

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
WILLIE K. SANDERS,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
18-CV-6552DGL
v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________________________

The pro se plaintiff in this case brought an action in 2018 pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) to review a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his
application for disability benefits. On November 7, 2019, the Court issued a Decision and Order
(Dkt. #32) granting the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and affirming the
Commissioner’s decision that plaintiff is not disabled. Judgment in favor of the Commissioner
was entered the following day. (Dkt. #33.)
Nearly four years later, on September 23, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that
decision (Dkt. #37), along with a motion for an extension of time to appeal (Dkt. #36). That
motion is denied.
“A notice of appeal generally must be ‘filed with the district clerk within 30 days after
entry of the judgment or order appealed from.’” Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC, 984 F.3d 244,
251 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) and citing Fed. R. App. P. 5(a)(2)). “A
district court may extend the filing deadline for the notice of an appeal if a party shows excusable
neglect or good cause and asks for the extension within 30 days after the filing deadline.” Dean

v. Robinson, __ F.Supp.3d __, 2024 WL 3248725, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. 2024) (cleaned up). The
Court cannot extend the appeal period beyond 30 days, even with good cause shown. Id. (citing
Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242, 245 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating that the Federal Rules’ jurisdictional
deadlines are “strict” and cannot be enlarged)).
Plaintiff’s motion must therefore be denied. Although as explained it is unnecessary to
determine whether plaintiff has demonstrated good case or excusable neglect for not filing a
timely appeal, the Court also notes that he has not done so; attached to his motion is an
assortment of documents post-dating the Court’s 2019 decision (including an order issued by an
administrative law judge in 2023 denying plaintiff’s application for benefits on res judicata
grounds, based on this Court’s 2019 decision), but none of them provide any basis upon which to
conclude that plaintiff had good cause for not appealing sooner.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. #36) for an extension of time to appeal from this Court’s
November 7, 2019 Decision and Order is denied, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close
this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
September 25, 2024.

-2-