Ngiendo v. Young Men's Christian Association of the USA
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-02454
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Quinn Ngiendo v. Young Men's Christian Association of the USA, Judge Provinzino granted plaintiff Quinn Ngiendo's request for extra time to file a notice of appeal, finding that her documented traumatic brain injury and cognitive difficulties were sufficient reason for missing the original deadline.
Quinn Ngiendo, a pro se plaintiff whose amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, who sought and received additional time to file a notice of appeal due to documented medical and cognitive impairments.
What happened
In Quinn Ngiendo v. Young Men's Christian Association of the USA (Case No. 24-cv-2454), the court had dismissed Ngiendo's amended complaint with prejudice on July 22, 2025, and entered judgment the next day. Ngiendo, who is representing herself, missed the August 22, 2025 deadline to file a notice of appeal — the first step toward asking a higher court to review the dismissal. She then asked the court for more time to file that notice, citing chronic pain, a traumatic brain injury, and cognitive problems that caused her to forget the deadline while she was also handling other cases on her own.
Under the applicable federal court rules, a party can get an extension to file a notice of appeal only if the request itself is filed within 30 days of the missed deadline, and only if the party shows either a good reason for the delay or that the failure to meet the deadline was an understandable mistake. The court found that Ngiendo's motion arrived just in time — on September 22, 2025, the last permissible day after accounting for a weekend. The court rejected Ngiendo's argument that being busy with other cases was a valid excuse, noting that even lawyers cannot use heavy workloads as justification, and self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural rules as everyone else.
However, Judge Provinzino found that Ngiendo's medical documentation — including records from recent hospital visits showing chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, sleep problems, and cognitive deficiencies — provided credible and specific evidence of excusable neglect. The court also found no meaningful harm to the defendant from the short delay and no sign of bad faith by Ngiendo. Accordingly, Judge Provinzino granted the motion and ordered that Ngiendo must file her notice of appeal no later than October 17, 2025.
The detailed version
- Quinn Ngiendo v. Young Men's Christian Association of the USA, Case No. 24-cv-2454 (LMP/JFD), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge. **Date of Order:** October 3, 2025
Background
On July 22, 2025, the court dismissed Plaintiff Quinn Ngiendo's amended complaint with prejudice (meaning she cannot refile the same claims). Judgment was entered on July 23, 2025. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 4(a)(1)(A), Ngiendo had 30 days from entry of judgment — until August 22, 2025 — to file a notice of appeal with the district court, which is the document that formally initiates an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ngiendo missed that deadline. On September 22, 2025, the Clerk's Office received her motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under FRAP 4(a)(5). The defendant did not oppose the motion.
Legal Standard
FRAP 4(a)(5) permits a district court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal if two conditions are satisfied: (1) the motion itself is filed within 30 days after the original appeal deadline expired; and (2) the moving party demonstrates either excusable neglect or good cause for the delay. The 30-day window to file the extension motion ran from August 22 to September 21, 2025; however, because September 21 fell on a weekend, FRAP 26(a)(1)(C) extended that deadline to September 22, 2025 — the exact date the Clerk received Ngiendo's motion. The court therefore found the motion timely.
For the excusable neglect analysis, the court applied the equitable, multi-factor test from Gibbons v. United States, 317 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2003), which considers: (a) the reason for the delay (the most important factor); (b) potential prejudice to other parties; (c) length of the delay; and (d) the moving party's good faith.
Analysis
- Reason for delay: Ngiendo, a pro se (self-represented) litigant, stated she suffers from chronic pain and a traumatic brain injury causing cognitive lapses, which caused her to forget to timely file the notice of appeal while also handling other pro se litigation. She submitted medical records from recent hospital visits supporting her claims of chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, sleep issues, and cognitive deficiencies. The court credited this evidence as recent, specific, and credible. The court explicitly rejected her argument that involvement in other pro se cases justified the delay, citing Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1984) for the proposition that pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules. However, it found her documented medical and cognitive impairments independently sufficient to constitute excusable neglect, citing analogous authority involving parties with schizophrenia and mental illness. - Prejudice and length of delay: The court noted, citing Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 2000), that in FRAP 4(a)(5) cases these factors typically favor the moving party because the delay is necessarily short (capped at 30 days) and prejudice to the non-moving party is usually minimal. - Good faith: The court found no bad faith on Ngiendo's part.
Ruling
The court granted Ngiendo's motion. Pursuant to FRAP 4(a)(5)(C), which limits any extension under this rule to no more than 14 days after the order granting the motion is entered, the court ordered Ngiendo to file her notice of appeal no later than October 17, 2025. The Clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to Ngiendo by email.
Procedural posture note
This order concerns only whether Ngiendo may file a late notice of appeal. The underlying dismissal of her amended complaint with prejudice (ECF No. 79) is not reconsidered here.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.