Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05131/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05131-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

WILLIAM D. GARLAND PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5131

RANDALL DENZER and SGT. FOSTER DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 9th day of January, 2007, come on for

consideration two untitled motions filed by plaintiff. The first,

document #36, asks for an extension of time to file a notice of

appeal. The second, document #37, asks for relief from judgment

pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b).

1. The background of the pending motions is as follows:

* Plaintiff filed a §1983 petition on July 27, 2005. 

* After preliminary proceedings, defendants moved for

summary judgment, and the Magistrate Judge entered an Order, dated

March 20, 2006, directing plaintiff to complete a response

questionnaire relating to that motion. A copy of this Order was

mailed to the address plaintiff had furnished to the Court. The

mailing was not returned as undeliverable, nor was the

questionnaire returned. 

* Based on plaintiff's lack of response, on June 1, 2006,

the Magistrate Judge filed a Report And Recommendation ("R&R") in

which she recommended that plaintiff's case be dismissed for

failure to prosecute.

Case 5:05-cv-05131-JLH Document 41 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

* There was no response to the R&R, and on June 21, 2006,

this Court adopted the R&R and dismissed plaintiff's case.

* On October 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge entered a

Change Of Address for plaintiff, and directed the re-mailing of

any pleadings or correspondence returned as undeliverable. 

* On November 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a Notice Of

Appeal. He was notified by the Clerk of Court that his Notice Of

Appeal appeared to be untimely, thus leading to the two pending

motions.

2. F.R.A.P. 4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend time

to file a notice of appeal, if a party "so moves no later than 30

days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires," upon a

showing of "excusable neglect or good cause." The time prescribed

under Rule 4(a) is thirty (30) days, and it had long since expired

when plaintiff filed his motion. The Court is, therefore, not

empowered to extend plaintiff's time to file a notice of appeal

pursuant to F.R.A.P. 4(a)(5).

3. The Court has also considered whether another provision

of Rule 4 would provide plaintiff the relief he seeks. F.R.A.P.

4(a)(6) allows a district court to "reopen the time to file an

appeal for 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is

entered" upon the satisfaction of three conditions:

* the Court finds that the affected party did not receive

notice under F.R.C.P. 77(d) of the entry of judgment within 21

Case 5:05-cv-05131-JLH Document 41 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

days;

* the motion is filed either within 180 days after entry

of the judgment or within 7 days after receiving notice under Rule

77(d), whichever is earlier; and

* the Court finds that no party would be prejudiced.

The only document from which an appeal lies is this Court's

Order adopting the R&R, which was filed on June 21, 2006. In

response to questions propounded to plaintiff by Order dated

December 14, 2006, plaintiff indicated that he learned of the

Order adopting the R&R when he received a copy of the docket from

the pro se law clerk, who wrote and informed him of the dismissal

of his case. The docket indicates that this letter was sent on

June 26, 2006, and the Court finds that plaintiff had received it

by November 8, 2006, because that is the date on which he prepared

his Notice Of Appeal. The motion seeking an extension of time to

appeal was filed on November 27, 2006. This date is more than

seven days after plaintiff received notice of the R&R, and is

earlier than 180 days after entry of the R&R. The Court is thus

not authorized to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal

pursuant to F.R.A.P. 4(a)(6).

4. F.R.C.P. 60(b) is not applicable to this situation. See

Zimmer St. Louis, Inc. v. Zimmer Co., 32 F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 1994).

Document #37 will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motions identified

Case 5:05-cv-05131-JLH Document 41 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

as document #36 and document #37 are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05131-JLH Document 41 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>