Enriquez v. Texas Department Of Criminal Justice et al
ORDER denying 44 MOTION for Extension of Time To File an Appeal. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DAVEY ENRIQUEZ, #1483328,
TDCJ, et al.,
June 14, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-3072
Pending before the Court is plaintiffs pro se motion to extend the deadline to file an
appeal (Docket Entry No. 44) and his memorandum in support (Docket Entry No. 48).
The Court dismissed this prose state inmate civil lawsuit on March 29, 2017, and
mailed a copy of the dismissal order to plaintiff at his address of record. Plaintiff
acknowledges that he received his copy of the order on April4, 2017. He subsequently filed
the pending motion with a notice of appeal, but did not utilize the "mail box rule." However,
his mailing envelope was postmarked May 3, 2017, and the motions itself stated that it was
sent to opposing counsel on May 3, 2017. The Court used May 3, 2017, as the filing date for
the notice of appeal and pending motion.
Plaintiffs notice of appeal was due within thirty days after entry of the judgment.
FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(l). Because the judgment in this case was entered on March 29, 2017,
plaintiff's notice of appeal was due April28, 2017. Plaintiff's notice of appeal, filed on May
3, 2017, was untimely.
The time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended for an additional thirty days if,
upon motion, the movant shows "excusable neglect or good cause."
R. APP. P.
4( a)( S)(A). Because plaintiff's motion did not request an extension on the basis of excusable
neglect or good cause or plead any supporting facts, the Court ordered him to set forth factual
allegations supporting his motion.
In his timely response to the Court's order (Docket Entry No. 48), plaintiff claims that
he placed his motion in the prison mail room on April22, 2017, and that prison officials must
have deliberately failed to mail it out on time. This self-serving allegation is refuted by
plaintiff's own pleadings. Plaintiff's notice of appeal/motion for an extension shows on its
face that it was mailed no earlier than May 3, 2017. Plaintiff fails to explain the discrepancy
between his certificate of service dated May 3, 2017, and his unsupported allegation that the
motion was actually mailed on April 22, 2017. Plaintiff does not provide this Court with a
copy of the relevant mailing log proving that he mailed his motion on April 22, 2017.
Moreover, if plaintiff did in fact mail his notice of appeal on April22, 2017, and knew
that the notice of appeal was due April 28, 201 7, he had no need to include a motion for an
extension of time to file the notice of appeal. That he did include a motion for an extension
of time is an additional indication to this Court that he did not mail the notice of
appeal/motion for an extension of time on April 22, 2017. Regardless, plaintiff clearly,
unambiguously, but incorrectly, stated in his notice of appeal/motion for an extension of time
that his notice of appeal was due May 3, 2017.
Plaintiff fails to prove that he timely mailed his notice of appeal, and fails to allege,
much less show, excusable neglect or good cause for an extension of time under Rule
4(a)(5)(A). The motion for an extension of time (Docket Entry No. 44) is DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on this the _.fJ_
~of June, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?