Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05142/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05142-3/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DAVID DANIELS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5142

 

JUDGE TOM KEITH DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, David Daniels, filed this civil rights action on July 31, 2006. He proceeded pro

se and in forma pauperis (IFP). Daniels now seeks leave to appeal IFP and the motion has been

referred to the undersigned.

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2006, a report and recommendation was entered on October 31, 2006

(Doc. 8). It recommended dismissal of the case on the grounds the defendant Circuit Judge Tom

Keith was immune from suit. On November 17, 2006, Daniels filed objections to the report and

recommendation (Doc. 9). The report was adopted and the case dismissed on January 3, 2007

(Doc. 10).

On April 24, 2007, Daniels filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 11). In the notice, Daniels

asserts that he did not know that “he could be granted an appeal.” On May 21, 2007, Daniels

filed a motion for leave to appeal IFP (Doc. 15) and a motion to extend the time to file an appeal

(Doc. 16). In the motion requesting an extension of time to appeal, Daniels asserts that he was

incarcerated, under medication, his legal mail was taken, he could not send and receive mail in

the proper manner, and his mail was thrown out and/or placed in his property.

Case 5:06-cv-05142-JLH Document 17 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) generally requires a notice of appeal to

be filed within thirty days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered. This time can

be extended under certain circumstances. Specifically, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

4(a)(5)(A) allows the district court upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause to extend

the time to file a notice of appeal if the party moves no later than thirty days after the time

otherwise prescribed expires. 

Daniels’ motion for an extension of time was not filed until May 21, 2007. The case was

dismissed by order entered on January 3, 2007. Clearly, the court cannot grant Daniels an

extension of time to file his notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(5).

Under Rule 4(a)(6) the court may reopen time to appeal for a period of fourteen days if

the following three conditions are met: (1) the court finds the moving party did not receive

notice under Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of entry of the judgment to be

appealed within twenty-one days after entry; (2) the motion is filed within 180 days after the

judgment is entered or within seven days after the moving party receives notice under Rule 77(d)

of entry whichever is earlier; and (c) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced. See

American Boat Co. v. Unknown Sunken Barge, 418 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2005).

Daniels makes no argument that he did not have notice of the dismissal of the case. The

notice of appeal is therefore untimely.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” Itherefore recommend as follows:

Case 5:06-cv-05142-JLH Document 17 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

(1) the motion for an extension of time to appeal be denied; (2) the motion to appeal IFP be

denied as the appeal is untimely and therefore not taken in good faith, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

I further recommend that the clerk be directed to collect the $455 filing fee pursuant to the terms

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff may, of course, renew his motion for leave to

appeal IFP with the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). 

The parties have ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 23rd day of May 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05142-JLH Document 17 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>