Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02363/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02363-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 - 08cv2363

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN M. ERNEST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-2363-H (POR)

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO

THE EXTENT IT IS NOT

JURISDICTIONALLY

BARRED; &

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO APPEAL IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

vs.

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX,

Defendant.

On December 19, 2008, Plaintiff Carolyn Ernest, a candidate for a Ph.D. program in

healthcare administration at the University of Phoenix, filed a complaint alleging violations

of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for her non-passing

grades. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint

against Defendant University of Phoenix in this case. (Doc. No. 34, SAC.) On July 27, 2010,

the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s SAC. (Doc. No. 47.) On July 28, 2010, the

Clerk entered judgment in favor of Defendant University of Phoenix and against Plaintiff.

(Doc. No. 48.)

On September 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal. (Doc. No. 49.) On September 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal. (Doc. No.

Case 3:08-cv-02363-H-POR Document 55 Filed 10/04/10 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 1

 September 26, 2010 was a Sunday. It appears that Plaintiff mailed her motion to the Court,

and the Court received it on Tuesday, September 28, 2010. 

- 2 - 08cv2363

50.) On September 28, 2010, Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. (Doc. No. 51.) On September 29, 2010, Defendant University of Phoenix

filed is response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal. (Doc. No. 54.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for

extension to file her notice of appeal to the extent it is not jurisdictionally barred, and

GRANTS her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

I. Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a notice of appeal “out of time.” (Doc. No. 49. ) Title

28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) provides that except as provided in that section, no appeal shall bring any

judgment, order, or decree in an action of a civil nature before a court of appeals for review

unless a notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after entry of such judgment, order, or

decree. A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Vahan v. Shalala, 30 F.3d

102, 103 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after

the district court enters judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The district court may extend

this period only if two requirements are met: (1) “a party so moves no later than 30 days after

the [original filing deadline]” and (2) “that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Like the deadline for a notice of appeal, the requirement that motions for

extension of time be made within thirty days after the original filing deadline is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 799 F.2d 1409, 1411 (9th Cir.1986)

(per curiam). 

Defendant argues that this court lacks authority under Rule 4(a)(5) to extend the time

for filing a notice of appeal, because Plaintiff filed her motion for extension of time more than

30 days after the time prescribed by Rule 4(a) expired. (Doc. No. 54.) In this case, the

deadline for filing a notice of appeal was August 27, 2010, and the deadline for requesting an

extension was September 27, 2010. Plaintiff’s motion for extension is dated September 26,

2010, however, Plaintiff filed her motion on September 28, 2010.1

 Plaintiff’s motion indicates

Case 3:08-cv-02363-H-POR Document 55 Filed 10/04/10 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 - 08cv2363

that Plaintiff has medical issues, and that she failed to file a timely notice of appeal due to her

medical situation. (Doc. No. 49.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff had failed to comply with deadlines for filing in the past,

and had filed multiple requests for extensions during the course of this action. The Court

recognizes that the timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. To the extent the

Court has discretion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for extension to file her notice of

appeal.

II. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal

Plaintiff also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. No. 51.)

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court may proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization unless the district court certifies the

appeal is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). The

Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court.

(Doc. No. 4.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. 

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for extension to file her

notice of appeal to the extent it is not jurisdictionally barred, and GRANTS her motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Defendant may renew and raise its jurisdictional

objections to the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 4, 2010

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:08-cv-02363-H-POR Document 55 Filed 10/04/10 Page 3 of 3