Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Hills v. Lamar County School District

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

August 28, 2013

DANIEL C. HILLS, Plaintiff,
v.
LAMAR COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KEITH STARRETT, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff Cynthia J. Hills' Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [112], Motion for Appellate Review [113], Motion for Certification [114] and Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appeal for Review of Case ("Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal") [115]. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motions are not well taken and should be denied.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Hills initiated this action on February 14, 2006, by filing a pro se Complaint [1] on behalf of her adult son, Daniel Hills, alleging various shortcomings related to the educational system of Lamar County, Mississippi, which purportedly caused damages to Daniel Hills during his tenure as a grade school, middle school and secondary school student in Lamar County schools. Also on February 14, Ms. Hills requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). ( See Motion [2].) This request was denied and Ms. Hills paid the required civil filing fee. ( See Order [22].) On March 30, 2007, an Amended Complaint [39] was filed adding Daniel Hills as a party plaintiff.

On November 30, 2007, the Court dismissed Ms. Hills from the litigation with prejudice because she alleged no individual injuries and lacked standing to assert any claims on behalf of Daniel Hills. ( See Memorandum Opinion and Order [89]; Judgment 90.) The Court also found that Ms. Hills could not remain in the suit as Daniel Hills' legal representative since he was neither incompetent nor a minor child and since Ms. Hills was not a licensed attorney. In addition, the claim for punitive damages in the Amended Complaint was dismissed because these damages are not available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

On February 13, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Daniel Hills' claims under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ( See Memorandum Opinion and Order [108].) Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice and all other pending motions were denied as moot. ( See Judgment [109].)

On August 13, 2013, approximately five and one-half years after the Court's Judgment [109], Plaintiff Cynthia J. Hills filed her Notice of Appeal [111], Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [112], Motion for Appellate Review [113], Motion for Certification [114] and Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal [115]. The Court will address each of Ms. Hills' motions in turn.

DISCUSSION

1. Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [112]

A district court may deny a litigant's request to proceed on appeal IFP by certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). The Court denies this motion and certifies that Ms. Hills' appeal is not taken in good faith because she failed to file a timely notice of appeal following the Court's Judgment [109]. See Evans v. Sims, No. 12-60563, 2013 WL 3286249, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 8, 2013) (denying plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP and dismissing appeal since the notice of appeal was untimely); United States v. Rivera-Moreno, No. 8:04CR118-1, 2008 WL 5083865, at *1 (D. Neb. Nov. 25, 2008) (certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith due to its untimely nature); Daniels v. Keith, No. 06-5142, 2007 WL 1821401, at *1 (W.D. Ark. June 25, 2007) ("motion to appeal IFP is denied as the appeal is untimely and therefore not taken in good faith, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)").

It is not clear whether Ms. Hills seeks to appeal the Court's dismissal of her claims or the subsequent dismissal of her son's claims. In either event, Ms. Hills' Notice of Appeal [111] is untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A)'s thirty-day deadline. Although Ms. Hills was dismissed with prejudice in November of 2007, this was an interlocutory ruling since Daniel Hills' claims remained pending and the Court did not direct the entry of final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Ms. Hills' dismissal became final for appeal purposes when Daniel Hills' remaining claims were dismissed on February 13, 2008. See OFS Fitel LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344, 1356 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Under general legal principles, earlier interlocutory orders merge into the final judgment, and a party may appeal the latter to assert error in the earlier interlocutory order.") (citation omitted). Ms. Hills' August of 2013 Notice of Appeal [111] was filed well in excess of March 14, 2008, the deadline for any timely appeal in this cause.

2. Motion for Appellate Review [113]

Generally, an appeal from a final judgment in a district court is perfected by the filing of a notice of appeal and no motion for appellate review is necessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a). However, a litigant may move for and obtain an extension of time to appeal under certain limited circumstances. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)-(6). A litigant may also seek appellate review of an interlocutory ruling by requesting that the district court certify the order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ms. Hills appears to have exercised each of the preceding options in this case by filing a Notice of Appeal [111], Motion for Certification [114] and Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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