Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01162/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01162-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Annette Antoine
Defendant
Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center
Defendant
James Alvin Dolph
Plaintiff
Randy Pence
Defendant

Document Text:

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Alvin Dolph, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 10-1162 PHX RCB(MHB)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Arizona Community )

Protection and Treatment )

Center, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

On December 12, 2011, in accordance with this court’s

order signed December 10, 2011, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), the

Clerk of the Court entered judgment dismissing this action

without prejudice. Doc. 31. Approximately ten months later,

on October 10, 2012, plaintiff pro se James Alvin Dolph, filed

the pending motion styled as a “Request for extension by the

court[.]” Req. (Doc. 32). In his request, plaintiff claims

that on April 10, 2012, he mailed his appeal of that December

12, 2011 Order and Judgment. Id. at 1:12-13. Plaintiff

further claims that he called the Clerk of the Court (although

Case 2:10-cv-01162-RCB Document 35 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

he does not specify which Court) “to verify the court[’]s

possession” of his appeal. Id. at 1:13. After being advised

that the Court “never received” his appeal, plaintiff is

inquiring as to whether it is still possible for him to file

his appeal. Id. at 1:14. If so, he is seeking a 120 day

extension to allow him “to gather [his] evidence.” Id. at

1:16.

The State defendants, Arizona Community Protection and

Treatment Center and Annette Antoine, oppose plaintiff’s

request for an extension as untimely under Fed.R.App.P.

4(a)(5)(i). Resp. (Doc. 33). Additionally, they argue that

plaintiff is not entitled to an extension of time because he

has not made the requisite showing of “excusable neglect” or

“good cause” as Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(ii) requires. Defendant

Randy Pence joins in that opposition. Joinder (Doc. 24). 

Plaintiff Dolph did not file a reply and the time to do so

has passed. See LRCiv 7.2(d) (allowing for service of a

reply, “if th[e] party so desires[,]” within 7 days after

service of the responsive memorandum). 

Defendants’ position is well taken on both counts. Rule

4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend the time to file a

notice of appeal if two conditions are met. First, the party

must “so move[] no later than 30 days after the time

prescribed by Rule 4(a) expires[.]” Fed.R.App.P.

4(a)(5)(A)(i). “[I]n other words, the request for an

extension of time must be filed within 60 days after the date

of entry of judgment.” Pruitt v. Metcalf & Eddy Inc., 2006

WL 760279, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citation omitted). Second,

Case 2:10-cv-01162-RCB Document 35 Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

plaintiff Dolph, as the party seeking such an extension, must

show “excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed.R.App.P.

4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Plaintiff Dolph cannot satisfy either of

these requirements.

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension is untimely in that

it was filed well beyond the 60 days allowed under Rule

4(a)(5)(A)(i). Moreover, “cases from other circuits make it

clear that the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant any

extension motion that is not filed within the 30 day grace

period allowed by FRAP 4(a)(5).” China Nat. Chemical Const.

Chonquing Co. v. Seedling, Worldmodal Network Services, 2007

WL 1235444, at *4 (D.Or. 2007) (citing, inter alia, Cohen v.

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 142 F.3d 116, 118 (2nd Cir.

1988)). 

Even if this court could consider plaintiff Dolph’s

untimely motion, it would not grant an extension because he

has not made the necessary showing under Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). 

“The good cause and excusable neglect standards [under that

Rule] have ‘different domains.’” Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5))A)(ii),

Advisory Committee Notes on 2002 Amendments (citation

omitted). Those standards “are not interchangeable, and one

is not inclusive of the other.” Id. Essentially, “[t]he

excusable neglect standard applies in situations in which

there is fault[,]” whereas “[t]he good cause standard applies

in situations in which there is no fault –- excusable or

otherwise.” Id. In the present case, plaintiff Dolph offers

no reason for his untimely filing and the court declines to

speculate. Thus, plaintiff has not established either

Case 2:10-cv-01162-RCB Document 35 Filed 10/29/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

“excusable neglect” or “good cause.” 

Accordingly, because plaintiff Dolph’s motion seeking an

extension of time in which to file his appeal is untimely,

and because he has shown neither “excusable neglect” or “good

cause” for that untimely filing, the court hereby DENIES

plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 32). 

DATED this 29th day of October, 2012.

Copies to plaintiff pro se and counsel of record

Case 2:10-cv-01162-RCB Document 35 Filed 10/29/12 Page 4 of 4