Brandon Young v. Kathleen Kenney, 949 F.3d 995

The district court dismissed Brandon Young’s prisoner civil‑rights complaint and entered judgment on November 8, 2019.
A notice of appeal was due by December 9, 2019; Young’s notice was dated December 17, 2019 and filed in the district court on December 30, 2019.
Young explained the delay by alleging he was placed on dry‑cell protocol and transferred on October 30, 2019 to a prison psychiatric unit where inmates may not keep property, and that he did not see the November 8 judgment until November 21.
Federal law and the Federal Rules permit a district court to extend or reopen the time to file a notice of appeal if a timely motion showing excusable neglect or good cause is filed.
Courts generally will not treat a late notice of appeal as a substitute for a motion for extension, but must liberally construe filings that could reasonably be interpreted as such.
The Sixth Circuit treated Young’s late notice as a motion for an extension, remanded to the district court to decide whether Young has shown excusable neglect or good cause, and held the appeal in abeyance pending that determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Young’s notice of appeal, filed late, is jurisdictionally defective	Young says he did not receive the judgment timely due to transfer and psychiatric placement, excusing the late filing	Defendant argues the notice was untimely and a late notice alone cannot substitute for a motion for extension	Court found the notice was late but treated it as a motion for extension to be decided by the district court
Whether a late notice can serve as a motion for extension under Rule 4	Young implicitly asks the court to treat his notice as seeking more time	Defendant maintains a simple notice is insufficient to constitute a motion under Rule 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6)	Court held late notice does not automatically substitute for a motion but must be liberally construed; here it reasonably reads as a motion
Standard for granting an extension or reopening appeal time	Young must show excusable neglect or good cause based on his transfer and mental‑health placement	Defendant relies on strict adherence to statutory time limits and precedent rejecting late notices as motions	Court directed remand so the district court can determine whether Young has shown excusable neglect or good cause
Procedural outcome pending extension decision	Young seeks appellate review	Defendant seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness	Court remanded to district court for factbound ruling and held the appeal in abeyance until that ruling

Alston v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., 494 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2007) (appellate courts must satisfy themselves of their own jurisdiction)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional requirements are antecedent questions)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (appeal‑deadline rules are mandatory jurisdictional prerequisites)
Martin v. Sullivan, 876 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2017) (filing a notice of appeal does not itself constitute a motion to extend or reopen filing time)
Poole v. Family Court of New Castle Cty., 368 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) (a notice of appeal generally cannot substitute for a Rule 4 motion)
Campos v. LeFevre, 825 F.2d 671 (2d Cir. 1987) (no particular form of words is necessary to constitute a motion, but a simple notice is insufficient)
Pryor v. Marshall, 711 F.2d 63 (6th Cir. 1983) (late notice that fails to allege excusable neglect or good cause cannot substitute for a Rule 4 motion)
Hall v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr. Main Hosp., 811 F.2d 605 (6th Cir. 1986) (documents should be liberally construed when they could reasonably be interpreted as motions for extension)