Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

a notice of appeal filed five minutes late has been deemed untimely. Baker, 879 F.2d at 1398,"

The Rules of Practice do not provide for an extension of time (for good cause or excusable neglect) for filing a notice of appeal after an administrative law judge's decision and order has become final. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the district court, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time to file a notice of appeal upon a motion filed no later than 30 days after the expiration of the time otherwise provided in the rules for the filing of a notice of appeal. The absence of such a rule in the Rules of Practice emphasizes that no such jurisdiction has been granted to the Judicial Officer to extend the time for filing an appeal after an administrative law judge's decision and order has become final. Therefore, under the Rules of Practice, I cannot extend the time for Respondent's filing an appeal petition after the ALJ's Decision and Order became final.

Moreover, the jurisdictional bar under the Rules of Practice, which precludes the Judicial Officer from hearing an appeal that is filed after an administrative law judge's decision and order becomes final, is consistent with the judicial construction of the Administrative Orders Review Act ("Hobbs

'Accord Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 203 (1988) (stating since the court of appeals properly held petitioner's notice of appeal from the decision on the merits to be untimely filed, and since the time of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, the court of appeals was without jurisdiction to review the decision on the merits); Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr. of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (stating under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2107, a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken; this 30-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional), rehearing denied, 434 U.S. 1089 (1978); Martinez v. Hoke, 38 F.3d 655, 656 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (stating under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the time for filing an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional and the court of appeals has no authority to extend time for filing); Price v. Seydel, 961 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating the filing of notice of appeal within the 30-day period specified in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) is mandatory and jurisdictional, and unless appellant's notice is timely, the appeal must be dismissed); In re Eichelberger, 943 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 1991) (stating Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal be filed with the clerk of the district court within 30 days after entry of the judgment; Rule 4(a)'s provisions are mandatory and jurisdictional); Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating the time limit in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply with Rule 4(a) requires dismissal of the appeal and the fact that appellant is incarcerated and proceeding pro se does not change the clear language of the Rule), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1060 (1990); Jerningham v. Humphreys, 868 F.2d 846 (6th Cir. 1989) (Order) (stating the failure of an appellant to timely file a notice of appeal deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction; compliance with Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite which this court can neither waive nor extend).

'Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).

62 Agric. Dec. 683

Act"). As stated in Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. ICC, 720 F.2d 958, 960 (7th Cir. 1983) (footnote omitted):

The Administrative Orders Review Act ("Hobbs Act") requires a petition to review a final order of an administrative agency to be brought within sixty days of the entry of the order. 28 U.S.C. § 2344 (1976). This sixty-day time limit is jurisdictional in nature and may not be enlarged by the courts. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 666 F.2d 595, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The purpose of the time limit is to impart finality into the administrative process, thereby conserving administrative resources and protecting the reliance interests of those who might conform their conduct to the administrative regulations. Id. at 602.9

Accordingly, Respondent's appeal petition must be denied, since it is too late for the matter to be further considered. Moreover, the matter should not be considered by a reviewing court since, under section 1.142(c)(4) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.142(c)(4)), “no decision shall be final for purposes of judicial review except a final decision of the Judicial Officer upon appeal."

For the foregoing reasons, the following Order should be issued.

ORDER

Respondent's appeal petition filed September 22, 2003, is denied. The Decision and Order filed by Administrative Law Judge Marc R. Hillson on August 13, 2003, is the final decision and order in this proceeding.

'Accord Jem Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 324-26 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (stating the court's baseline standard long has been that statutory limitations on petitions for review are jurisdictional in nature and appellant's petition filed after the 60-day limitation in the Hobbs Act will not be entertained); Friends of Sierra R.R. v. ICC, 881 F.2d 663, 666 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating the time limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2344 is jurisdictional), cert. denied sub nom. Tuolumne Park & Recreation Dist. v. ICC, 493 U.S. 1093 (1990).

In re: HARRY LEVY.

DNS-FNS Docket No. 03-0001.

Order Dismissing Decision.

Filed October 14, 2003.

Rachel Bishop, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Decision issued by Jill S. Clifton, Administrative Law Judge.

For the reasons stated in the Debarring Official's Response to the Appeal Petition, filed August 6, 2003, and based upon the Administrative Record, which was filed August 6, 2003, both of which were provided by the Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, I uphold the initial suspension, the continuation of the suspension, the proposed debarment and debarment of Harry Levy, each of which ended on or before October 2, 2003.

This decision is final and is not appealable within the United States Department of Agriculture. 7 C.F.R. § 3017.515.

Copies of this Order shall be served by the Hearing Clerk upon each of the parties.

In re: TERRY BUECHLER.
FCIA Docket No. 03-0004.
Order Dismissing Case.

Filed November 20, 2003.

Donald Brittenham, Jr., for Complainant.
Respondent, Ross H. Espeth.

Order issued by Jill S. Clifton, Administrative Law Judge.

Complainant, the Manager of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; and Respondent, Terry Buechler, jointly requested that this case be dismissed with prejudice. The request stated that Complainant and Respondent have reached a settlement agreement.

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.

Copies of this Order shall be served by the Hearing Clerk upon each of the parties.

62 Agric. Dec. 691

In re: DON CAMPBELL.

FCIA Docket No. 03-0005.
Order Dismissing Case.
Filed October 31, 2003.

Donald Brittenham, Jr., Complainant.
Respondent, Kenneth Bulie.

Order issued by Jill S. Clifton, Administrative Law Judge.

Complainant, the Manager of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; and Respondent, Don Campbell, jointly requested that this case be dismissed with prejudice. The request sated that Complainant and Respondent have reached a settlement agreement.

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.

Copies of this Order shall be served by the Hearing Clerk upon each of the parties.

In re: STATE OF COLORADO

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

FSP Docket No. 03-0001.

Withdrawal of Appeal.

Filed August 22, 2003.

Richard Hill, for Appellee.

Appellant, Pro se.

Order issued by Marc R. Hillson, Administrative Law Judge.

By communication dated August 13, 2003 and received by the Hearing Clerk on August 20, 2003, the State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Human Services withdrew its appeal in the above-captioned proceeding. This office now considers the case closed.

In re: STATE OF MICHIGAN FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY.

FSP Docket No. 02-0001.

Withdrawal of Appeal.

Filed October 22, 2003.

Angela Kliine for Appellee.
Appellant, Erica Weiss Marsden.

Order issued by Leslie B. Holt, Administrative Law Judge.

By communication dated October 6, 2003, and received by the Hearing Clerk's Office on October 21, 2003, the State of Michigan, Family Independence Agency, withdrew its appeal in the above-captioned proceeding. The office now considers the case closed.

Copies of this Notice shall be served by the Hearing Clerk upon each of the parties.

In re: WILLIAM J. REINHART, d/b/a REINHART STABLES.
HPA Docket No. 99-0013.

Order Lifting Stay, Ruling Denying Motion for Permanent Stay, and
Ruling Granting Motion to Amend Case Caption.

Filed September 8, 2003.

Colleen A. Carroll, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Order and Rulings issued by William G. Jenson, Judicial Officer.

HPA Stay, Lift

Judicial Officer denied Respondent's Motions for Permanent Stay to enforcement of civil remedies due to alleged shortcoming on part of USDA and making error by Hearing Clerk's office.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 9, 2000, I issued a Decision and Order concluding William J. Reinhart, d/b/a Reinhart Stables [hereinafter Respondent], violated the Horse Protection Act of 1970, as amended (15 U.S.C. §§ 1821-1831)

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »