Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02591-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TRACY THOMAS COSTA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-2591-EFB 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed the instant action in October 2012, seeking review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for a period of 

disability and Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. ECF No. 1. 

On March 31, 2014, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted the 

Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in the 

Commissioner’s favor. ECF Nos. 16,17. On June 26, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for an 

extension of time to file an appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). 

 That rule allows a district court to extend the time to appeal where “(i) a party so moves 

no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and (ii) regardless of 

whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) 

expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). “The 

Case 2:12-cv-02591-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

requirement that motions for extension be filed within thirty days of the original deadline is 

mandatory and jurisdictional.” Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 799 F.2d 1409, 1411 (9th Cir. 

1986). 

 Plaintiff’s motion was timely filed. Judgment was entered on March 31, 2014. ECF No. 

17. Thus, plaintiff had until May 30, 2014 to file her notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B)(iii) (providing that a notice of appeal may be filed within 60 days after the entry of 

judgment where one of the parties is a United States agency). As plaintiff’s request for an 

extension of time was filed on June 26, 2014, within 30 days of the deadline prescribed by Rule 

4(a)(1), the instant motion is timely.1 

 In determining the question of excusable neglect, a court must consider “(1) the danger of 

prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial 

proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control 

of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. 

Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick 

Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated 

good cause and/or excusable neglect. Plaintiff explains that the attorney that represented her in 

this action retired prior to the court issuing a decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary 

judgment. After judgment was entered in this case, plaintiff claims she had difficulty obtaining 

new counsel due to her medical conditions. ECF No. 19-1. 

Further, there is little danger of prejudice to the Commissioner and any delay will not 

adversely impact judicial proceedings as appeal review of this case involves a review of the 

administrative record filed in this action. Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of granting 

an extension. 

 1

 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(B) provides that a motion for an extension 

of time to file an appeal made before the expiration of the time prescribed in Rule 4(a)(1) may be 

ex parte, but where “the motion is filed after the expiration of the prescribed time, notice must be 

given to the other parties in accordance with local rules.” The instant motion was filed after the 

expiration of the 60 day period prescribed in Rule 4(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff failed to notice the motion 

for hearing, but did serve a copy of the motion on the Commissioner. ECF No. 19-7. Although 

the Commissioner had adequate time to file a response to the motion, no response was filed. 

Case 2:12-cv-02591-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

Lastly, there does not appear to be any bad faith on behalf of plaintiff. Upon weighing 

these factors, the court grants plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an appeal (ECF No. 19) is granted; 

and 

 2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file a Notice of Appeal with this 

court. 

DATED: May 18, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-02591-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3