Opinion ID: 162305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Motion for Extension of Time

Text: We review the denial of a motion for extension of time made under Rule 6(b) for an abuse of discretion. See Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, 60 F.3d 1486, 1494 (10th Cir. 1995). Rule 6(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a district court may in its discretion grant an extension of time “upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period . . . where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect” but that the court “may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules . . . 59(b), (d)[,] and (e).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) (emphasis added). Because Rule 6(b)(2) specifically prohibits an extension of time for motions filed pursuant to Rule 59(e), the district court acted properly in denying Ms. Pinkey’s motion for extension of time within which to file a Rule 59(e) motion. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Thompson v. INS , 375 U.S. 384 (1964), does not lead us to conclude otherwise. Admittedly, in Thompson , the Court recognized that, “[i]n rare cases, . . . these time limits [could] be extended where -9- the party makes a showing of ‘unique circumstances’ justifying the delay.” Weitz , 214 F.3d at 1178. But here there are no such unique circumstances. “[T]he rules specifically and directly prohibit courts from granting any extensions for Rule 59(e) motions.” Id. at 1180.