Williams, Patricia v. WI Dept of Workforce Development

Filing 73

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to appeal and denying plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/21/2017. (elc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PATRICIA WILLIAMS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-794-bbc
v.
WISCONSIN DEPT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On April 17, 2015, the clerk of court entered judgment in favor of defendant
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development after I granted summary judgment to
defendant. Now plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and motion for extension of time.
Because plaintiff has not paid the $505 appellate filing fee, I construe her appeal to also
include a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Because the judgment was entered in this case on April 17, 2015, plaintiff’s 30day deadline for filing a notice of appeal fell on May 18, 2015. A district court may
extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves no later than 30 days after the
time prescribed by Rule 4(a) expires and the party shows excusable neglect or good cause.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). Plaintiff’s motion does not meet either of these requirements.

1

First, plaintiff’s notice of appeal was received by the court on August 18, 2017,
exactly 2 years and three months after the running of the 30-day deadline for appealing
the court’s April 17, 2015 judgment closing this case. Second, plaintiff does not explain
why she waited so long to appeal.
Because the notice of appeal was received by the court on August 18, 2017, more
than two years after entry of judgment, the appeal may be untimely. However, only the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit may determine whether it has jurisdiction to
entertain an appeal. Hyche v. Christensen, 170 F.3d 769, 770 (7th Cir. 1999).
Therefore, I will consider plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) provides that if a plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in this court, she “may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis unless . . .
the district court shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find that
the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed.”

Because plaintiff has identified no

grounds for filing her notice of appeal so far past the deadline for doing so, I conclude
that her appeal is not taken in good faith and I am denying her request to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Because I am certifying that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith, she
cannot proceed with her appeal without prepaying the $505 filing fee unless the court of
appeals gives her permission to do so. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24,
plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to ask the court of appeals to review this

2

court’s denial of her request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. With her
motion, plaintiff must include a copy of this order in addition to the notice of appeal and
affidavit she filed previously.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1.

Plaintiff Patricia Williams’s motion for an extension of time to appeal is

DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.

Entered this 21st day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3