UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, * 

 * 

Plaintiff, * 

 * 

v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (E) 

 * 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

 * 

Defendant. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT

OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOW COMES Plaintiff Robert Hopkins, III (“Hopkins”), pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), to respectfully request a thirty-day 

extension, until 24 June 2024,1 of the deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal. 

Hopkins’s Notice is due 25 May 2024. 

Hopkins has good cause to request this relief. Today he filed an unopposed 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b)(1) motion for reconsideration, 

which he was unable to file within the twenty-eight day period which would trigger 

an automatic stay of the appeal deadline, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(vi), because 

1

 Hopkins alternatively asks for a longer extension under special circumstances, which will be explained 

below. 

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 50 Filed 05/07/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1025
2

in this Circuit, any motion seeking a change in a judgment filed within twentyeight days of the judgment is analyzed under FRCP 59(e), not FRCP 60(b). See 

Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A motion for 

reconsideration is ‘deemed to arise under Rule 59 if filed within Rule 59’s [then] 

ten-day time limit’ regardless of the label applied to the motion.”) (citation 

omitted). Hopkins’s motion for reconsideration does not meet the criteria required 

for relief under FRCP 59(e), since it is not grounded in “(1) an intervening change 

in controlling law; (2) the availability of evidence not previously available; or (3) a 

manifest error of law or fact.” Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group, Inc., 342 

F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Hopkins could not avail himself of the 

automatic stay provision, since he based his motion for reconsideration on 

excusable neglect, which is a criterion for relief under FRCP 60(b)(1) but not 

FRCP 59(e).

As a result, he now asks this Court to extend his appeal deadline by the 

maximum amount of thirty days, to allow time for it to fully adjudicate his motion 

for reconsideration. Alternatively (and preferably), he asks the Court to defer 

ruling on this Motion until it rules on his motion for reconsideration, and that in 

that instance, it extend his appeal deadline by fourteen days of the date of the 

decision, as per FRAP 4(a)(5)(C).

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 50 Filed 05/07/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1026
3 

 Defendant Department of Defense (“DOD”) takes no position on this 

Motion. A proposed Order accompanies this Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned conferred with DOD’s counsel Lisa Newman regarding the 

relief requested in this Motion on 30 April 2024. DOD’s counsel responded, in 

pertinent part, “The government takes no position on the motion[.]” Accordingly, 

in the absence of opposition, this is being filed as an unopposed motion. 

Date: May 7, 2024

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly B. McClanahan 

 Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.

 N.D. Tex. Bar #984704DC

 National Security Counselors

 4702 Levada Terrace

 Rockville, MD 20853

 301-728-5908

 240-681-2189 fax

 Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org

Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that the foregoing filing contains 410 words.

 /s/ Kelly B. McClanahan 

 Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 50 Filed 05/07/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1027