Alexander v. Saul, 8:17-cv-01361

Background

Plaintiff Marion A. sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits; this Court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment on March 28, 2019.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) Marion had 60 days to file a notice of appeal; no notice was filed within that period.
On May 29–30, 2019 Marion moved for an extension of time to file an appeal (initially ex parte, then on notice); the Commissioner opposed.
The Court evaluated the motion under Rule 4(a)(5) and the Supreme Court’s Pioneer four-factor test for excusable neglect/good cause.
The Court found the first, second, and fourth Pioneer factors (prejudice, length of delay, good faith) did not defeat relief, but the third factor (reason for delay) failed: Marion’s loss of contact with counsel was within her control and her counsel’s reference to mental illness was conclusory.
The Court denied the extension and refused to excuse the untimely appeal, noting Social Security special-solicitude arguments do not override jurisdictional timing requirements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to extend time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) (excusable neglect/good cause)	Marion asked for an extension because she did not receive notice and later informed counsel she wished to appeal	Commissioner opposed; finality and need to defend appeal weigh against relief	Denied: Pioneer factors applied; reason for delay dispositive and not excusable
Whether failure to receive notice due to Marion’s changed address justifies excusable neglect	Counsel’s mailed notice was returned undeliverable and counsel could not locate Marion; Marion later contacted counsel and requested appeal	Commissioner argued parties must keep counsel/court apprised of address; failure to do so is within party’s control	Denied: Failure to keep counsel informed is not good cause/excusable neglect; risk was Marion’s to bear
Whether Marion’s mental illness excuses the late appeal	Counsel asserted Marion’s severe mental illness contributed to the delay	Commissioner contended conclusory assertions insufficient to show excusable neglect	Denied: Court found the mental‑illness claim conclusory and inadequate to meet Pioneer’s standard
Whether Social Security claimants deserve special solicitude permitting relaxation of appellate deadlines	Marion argued Social Security Act protections warrant leniency	Commissioner argued timing rules are jurisdictional and must be strictly enforced	Denied: Court held time limits are mandatory; Smith v. Berryhill did not support relaxing jurisdictional appellate deadlines

Key Cases Cited

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (announces four-factor test for excusable neglect)
Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2003) (applies Pioneer; sets a demanding standard)
Mendes Junior Int’l Co. v. Banco do Brasil, S.A., 215 F.3d 306 (2d Cir. 2000) (limits court’s authority to extend appeal time)
Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2001) (addresses extension of appeal time under Rule 4)
Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 874 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2017) (time requirements for invoking appellate jurisdiction strictly enforced)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1982) (time limits for appeals are mandatory and jurisdictional)
Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765 (U.S. 2019) (distinguishable: involved a nonjurisdictional Social Security provision)
Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580, 899 F. Supp. 1228 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (prejudice from having to defend an appeal exists irrespective of untimeliness)