Davis v. City of Mount Vernon

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 21, 2021
Docket7:17-cv-08029
StatusUnknown

This text of Davis v. City of Mount Vernon (Davis v. City of Mount Vernon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. City of Mount Vernon, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

i USDC SDNY i □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ! RLECTRONICALLY FILED Toronommaca nanan □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ROC ih i □ SONIA B. DAVIS, laatesnan [YW | □□ P laintiff, Hooteensnmnnemnnr eens = Gapoces AZ, js! 8. g : CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, MOUNT □ 8 VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE — : ORDER □□ OFFICER DERVIN CHERY, POLICE — oS □□ OFFICER EDUARDO BAERGA, POLICE : OFFICER TIMOTHY W. BRILEY, POLICE — 17 CV 8029 (VB) OFFICER DARIUS M. MITCHELL, POLICE: OFFICER ROBERT F, KRESSMAN, SERGEANT MICHAEL MARCUCULLI, and: POLICE OFFICERS JOHN & JANE DOE, : Defendants, ee ee eee ee een ee eee ee eee eee □□□ X On August 30, 2021, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, requested an update on the status of this case. By Memorandum Endorsement dated September 3, 2021, the Court stated that plaintiff's case was terminated on June 24, 2020. (Doc. #60). The Court also reminded plaintiff that (i) the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on June 22, 2020; (ii) the Clerk of Court issued a Judgment terminating plaintiff’s case on June 24, 2020; and (iii) a copy of the Judgment, which stated that the Court had granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs cross-motion, was mailed to plaintiff at her address on the docket on June 24, 2020. (Id.).! On September 3, 2021, the Court mailed to plaintiff a copy of the September 3 Memorandum Endorsement, the June 22 Opinion and Order, the Clerk’s Judgment and notice of right to appeal (Doc. #59), plaintiffs medical records that she had mailed to the Court, and a copy of the ECF docket. (ld.). On September 20, 2021, the Court received the attached letter, notice of appeal, and application to proceed IFP from plaintiff. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).? Because plaintiff’s time to appeal has expired, the Court will construe plaintiffs notice of appeal as a motion to reopen the time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 4(a)(6) permits a district court to reopen the time to file an appeal only if:

| On June 24, 2020, the Court also mailed to plaintiff a notice of right to appeal, and instructions on how to appeal her case. (Doc. #59). 2 Plaintiff will be provided copies of all unpublished opinions cited in this decision. See Lebron vy. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2009).

(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry; (B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and (C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced. Fed, R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the preconditions of Rule 4(a)(6). Specifically, plaintiff has failed to satisfy the second prong of Rule 4(a)(6), which requires that a motion to reopen the time to appeal be “filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B); see also United States v. Zvi, 274 F. App’x 87, 88 (2d Cir, 2008) (stating the district court did not have discretion under Rule 4(a)(6)(B) to reopen the time to appeal when the plaintiff failed to file notice within 180 days of the order closing the case). Judgment in this action was entered on June 24, 2020. Therefore, the latest date plaintiff could have filed her motion to reopen the time to file an appeal was December 21, 2020. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to reopen the time to file an appeal is untimely and must be DENIED. Dated: September 21, 2021 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED:

Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

ee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK /

Dania! Dawe

(List the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s).) “ CV % 0: A Gc V 3 yer Q) -against- NOTICE OF APPEAL Cid of Teor Vernon, Man? Vey Nan Me ree. De Gorbmerst—on & t oO Vee odes (List the full name(s) of the defendant(s}/respondent(s).)

Notice is hereby given that the following parties: Sr WM \a ( 3 On C

(list the names of all parties who are filing an appeal) in the above-named case appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the e/judgment Dlorder enteredon) \QOe SY 2) d Oud Men: (date that judgment or order was entered on docket) 59- that: ; x aN nos Ou layer tT don □ onte stand these □ Xe De Sen* +o ™ eC, = wos geting ( aroidn eVect 1 Vear j (If the appeal is from an order, provide a brief description above of the decisionta the drder.) Ny Yak eg hedian?, iL did Not now □□ Case Tras Cl Q-|5-al 3 Deane Dated “Signature. Davis & ania 13 Name (Last, First, Ml)

Q Gro a frele. lun Hen derson nh 27 Address City State Zip Code ASR To 7- 0337 Telephone Number — E-mail Address (if available)

‘Each party filing the appeal must date and sign the Notice of Appeal and provide his or her mailing address and telephone number, EXCEPT that a signer of a pro se notice of appeal may sign for his or her spouse and minor children if they are parties to the case. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2}. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Rev. 12/23/13 .

Case I) ev- Yoadalve) G- 15> □□

Sonia IF Weasis SB Grove Tack La Mendewon, Me 27537

Judge Vincent Lr Berecedts

your Hohe you thie K oh wag alren €er Most Verorm Police office: tO Jomp me hod. 14 Fusion Opera bDefar the Policies p af A/S SOK Sea Ave Apt YR on Oct 1G Bole, tt KOM. for. Felice Lado +naG, a Gat. Vadet they My orVer my Shoofd Booty Phen, tag RQHE anklet Be yf clke my cerita} [hore eve Liom ber xo ust had Epon Or VV iJart OS Hd)y On WA □ ht AY ant PAY Now €ro Out 4 / aye Be srr ONeS= "Po lee OF Ficers

a ride. fe the Hase¥e\ Vo) Ive bP cep s all aver TY +h Oame ENing Woes Vernon VD )rce □□□ D Pc 7 ‘Tv

sh LiKe 4Srno~) Coes.

TT Ley (tH Work ot

A ll, Marry Lusiory «

Snateh my Nerves = fhe w)rary. Soe) = have a hecveS Condition Moyome .al\ the Kee my _./egs 5 my" once L Nas] Cr. pindh Decue fan y loutteck: Tm Fe NW Risk. □□□□□

Ep A BN 5’ ee SE OS

peepee aT oy Pp . : ee oT Tt: |

Pr

DI . Ei ial 4 | © |

}

eS eee oR ES IE SE eS ee ee ee JIE | wee) rw Sonia B. Davis oh Q2 r021 58 Grove Park Lane —SHAMBERS OF Henderson, NC 27537 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

30th August 2021

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lebron v. Sanders
557 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Zvi
274 F. App'x 87 (Second Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Davis v. City of Mount Vernon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-city-of-mount-vernon-nysd-2021.