Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00661/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00661-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jane Doe,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-661-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Extend Time to Appeal" and "Motion

to Redact True Name and Seal Identity." The final judgments dismissing the individual

defendants in this case were signed on 7/1/05, 8/10/05, and 9/12/05. Plaintiff filed her

motion to extend time to file appeal on November 14, 2005. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) ("Rule 4"), Plaintiff had to file her notice of appeal

within 30 days after judgment was entered. Plaintiff did not comply with this provision.

Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i), a district may extend the time to appeal upon a party's motion

if "a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time" limit set in Rule 4(a)(1) which is

within 30 days after the judgment is entered. Plaintiff failed to file her motion for an

extension of time to appeal within this 30 day grace period. 

Case 4:04-cv-00661-CKJ Document 40 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Thus, this Court is without jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff's motion. See Vahan v. Shalala,

30 F.3d 102, 103 (9th Cir. 1994)(per curium)(holding that Rule 4(a)'s time limits are

jurisdictional such that where a party files its motion for an extension of time more than 30

days after the time prescribed by Rule 4(a)(1) expires, a district court lacks authority under

Rule 4(a)(5) to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal). In addition, Plaintiff has failed

to show "excusable neglect or good cause" for her untimely request. See Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).

Plaintiff's one arrest on 5/5/05 and her claim that she has been on medication since July of

2005 allegedly causing "diminished capacity" does not demonstrate that Plaintiff was unable

to file a simple notice of appeal during the relevant times in question. Accordingly,

Plaintiff's "Motion to Extend Time to Appeal" is denied. 

Lastly, as this case has been dismissed, Plaintiff's "Motion to Redact True Name and Seal

Identity" is denied as moot. 

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

Case 4:04-cv-00661-CKJ Document 40 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2