Case Name: Timothy BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eugene MCADORY, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-14
Citations: 668 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 15-1036
Parties: Timothy BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eugene MCADORY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Timothy BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eugene MCADORY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1036
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued January 21, 2016
Decided September 14, 2016
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 9, 2016
Christopher J. DiPompeo, Attorney, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Brian J. Murray, Attorney, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Timothy M. Maggio, Carolyn E. Shapiro, Nadine J. Wichern, Attorneys, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge
Judge Williams did not participate in the consideration of this petition.

Opinion:
Order
Our opinion of last April directed the district court to treat post-judgment papers that Timothy Bell had filed there as a motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) for additional time to appeal. The district judge now has done so and, in an order dated September 6, has found that Bell lacks excusable neglect or good cause for not filing a timely appeal.
Our review of such a decision is deferential, see Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LP, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), and we do not see any problem in the district court's disposition. The judge stressed that his order on the merits had itself informed Bell that he must appeal within 30 days of "the entry of judgment", so that even if imprisoned litigants are apt to misunderstand the Appellate Rules, Bell knew the deadline. His contention that another inmate had told him that time is calculated from a decision's receipt in the prison, rather than its entry in the district court, cannot justify disregarding information provided directly by the court. Bell's delay therefore lacks a good cause and cannot be attributed "excusable" neglect. Accordingly, we dismiss Bell's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.