Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOHNSON v. COOMBE

United States District Court, S.D. New York


September 15, 2004.

KERWIN JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
PHILLIP COOMBE, JR., et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

By order dated August 3, 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal but remanded this case for a determination as to whether language in the notice of appeal may be construed as a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The notice of appeal itself contains no such language. It was accompanied, however, by a document advising that the notice of appeal was delayed due to circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. This document sought to excuse the belated filing of the notice of appeal and thus implicitly sought relief from the rigors of the 30 day time limit. The Court therefore construes it as a motion for an extension of time within which to file the notice of appeal. See Campos v. LeFevre, 825 F.2d 671, 676 (2d Cir. 1987).

  As the "motion" was filed within 30 days after the time prescribed for the filing of the notice of appeal, the Court has the power to grant an extension until the later of 30 days after the prescribed time or 10 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered. Fed.R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the time for filing the notice of appeal is extended to and including the 10th day after the date on which this order is entered.

  SO ORDERED.

20040915

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.