United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE
NOTICES OF APPEAL
JOHN
A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July
1, 2013, James Stile filed a Complaint against Somerset
County, the Somerset County Sheriff, thirty-four Somerset
County corrections officers, and a number of other Somerset
County Defendants, and on October 14, 2014, Mr. Stile filed a
Complaint against Cumberland County, the Cumberland County
Sheriff, and twenty Cumberland County corrections officers.
Stile v. Somerset County, Compl. (ECF No.
1) (Somerset County); Stile v. Cumberland
County, Compl. (ECF No. 1) (Cumberland
County). Mr. Stile filed both lawsuits pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Now, years after the initial complaints,
the cases are finally trial ready. On October 12, 2018, the
Clerk's Office set Mr. Stile's Somerset County case
for trial beginning December 4, 2018, Trial List
(ECF No. 605) (Somerset County), and his Cumberland
County case for trial beginning December 3, 2018. Trial
List (ECF No. 254).
What
allowed the cases to be set for trial is the Court's
issuance on September 28, 2018, of two orders on dispositive
motions. Order on Defs.' Mots. for Summ. J. and
Pl.'s Related Mots. (ECF No. 601) (Somerset
County); Order on Defs.' Mot. for J. on the
Pleadings and Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 252)
(Cumberland County). On October 15, 2018, Mr. Stile
filed motions for extension of time within which to file
notices of appeal. Mot. for Extension of Time to File
Notice of Appeal Pending Outcome of Pl.'s Mot. for
Recons. of J. Order of the Court (ECF No. 607)
(Somerset County) (Pl.'s Somerset Mot. to
Extend); Mot. for Extension of Time to File Notice
of Appeal Pending Outcome of Pl. Mot. for Recons. of J. Order
of the Court (ECF No. 255) (Cumberland County)
(Pl.'s Cumberland Mot. to Extend). The Counties
filed objections to these extension requests. Defs.'
Obj. to Pl.'s Mot. for Extension of Time to File Notice
of Appeal (ECF No. 608), Obj. to Pl.'s Mot. to
Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 607) (ECF
No. 609), Def. David Allen's Obj. to Pl.'s Mot.
to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 607)
(ECF No. 610) (Somerset County); Defs.' Obj.
to Pl.'s Mot. for Extension of Time to File Notice of
Appeal (ECF No. 257) (Cumberland County).
Mr.
Stile's motions for extension are cryptic:
NOW COME Plaintiff JAMES STILE Pro-Se and makes this motion
for an extension of time to file his Notice of Appeal in the
above-docketed case for a period of time of (60) sixty days
from the date of the receipt of the Judgment Order by the
Plaintiff which is October 4, 2018 as evidenced by the
accompanying Exhibit “A”.
Said Judgment is an Order granting Summary Judgment in the
above-captioned case that is dated September 28, 2018.
Pl.'s Somerset Mot. to Extend at 1;
Pl.'s Cumberland Mot. to Extend at 1.
To be
entitled to an extension of time within which to appeal, Rule
4(a)(5) requires that the party moving for an extension
demonstrate either “excusable neglect” or
“good cause”. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). The
advisory committee notes to Appellate Rule 4 state:
The excusable neglect standard applies in situations in which
there is fault; in such situations, the need for an extension
is usually occasioned by something within the control of the
movant. The good cause standard applies in situations in
which there is no fault-excusable or otherwise. In such
situations, the need for an extension is usually occasioned
by something that is not within the control of the movant.
Id., advisory committee's note to 2002
amendment. Mr. Stile has given no reason from which the Court
could conclude that he has either good cause or excusable
neglect in requesting the extension. In fact, the notices of
appeal itself would have been shorter even than Mr.
Stile's terse motions.
There
are a number of reasons for refusing to grant Mr. Stile's
motion. First, these cases have been pending in this Court
for four and five years respectively. It is past time to
resolve them. Second, Mr. Stile proposes to file an
interlocutory appeal of the Court's summary judgment
orders. He has filed a number of interlocutory appeals in
both these cases without success. Interlocutory
Appeal (ECF No. 142), J. (ECF No. 158),
Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 163), J. (ECF
No. 193) (Cumberland County); Interlocutory
Appeal (ECF No. 319), Interlocutory Appeal (ECF
No. 320), J. (ECF No. 347), Interlocutory
Appeal (ECF No. 399), J. (ECF No. 421)
(Somerset County). Third, the orders on the summary
judgments that Mr. Stile intends appealing are not final
judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which
provides that “any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not
end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be
revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating
all the claims and all the parties' rights and
liabilities.” Fourth, there is no reason for further
delay. These long-pending cases are trial-ready for the
December term of court and both for the sake of Mr. Stile and
the remaining Defendants, they all deserve to have these
civil actions finally resolved. These cases remain on the
trial lists for the December 2018 terms of court in December
in both Bangor and Portland.
The
Court DENIES James Stile's Motion for Extension of Time
to File Notice of Appeal Pending Outcome of Plaintiff Motion
for Reconsideration of Judgment Order of the Court (ECF No.
607) (Stile v. Somerset County, 1:13-cv-00248-JAW)
and Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Pending Outcome of Plaintiff Motion for Reconsideration ...