 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gilbert v. Municipality of Anchorage11/23/2005
18, 2002 order and more than nine months after the thirty-day period prescribed by Appellate Rule 602(a)(2) had run. Even if Gilbert was entitled to credit for attempting to file her appeal in a timely fashion, she did not try to correct her mistakes for more than two months. And after her second attempt to file was rejected for several deficiencies, she failed to even attempt to address the deficiencies for five and one-half months.
16. Gilbert did not provide any good reason for these delays. Her only justification for the five and one-half month delay was that the packet containing her rejected March 26, 2003 filings was "dropped behind some furniture with some other mail and was only recently discovered." We are aware that Gilbert suffers from debilitating health problems and is representing herself in a variety of legal matters.
We have little doubt that Gilbert's ability to work on her appeal was limited by these health problems as well as the strain of her case load of pro se cases. These concerns may, at times, constitute satisfactory reasons for delay. However, a litigant must bring particular difficulties to the court's attention so that the court can work with her. And when a lower court exercises its discretion to deny a motion to relax a filing deadline, the movant's generalized assertion of hardship - made long after her deadline grew stale and cold - does not weigh against that court's decision.
17. Third, Gilbert has not alleged any reasons for concluding that the underlying administrative process was unfair; she only disputes the outcome. Our review of the record provides no reason to think that the hearing was conducted unfairly.
18. The last consideration - Animal Control's interests in the finality of the adjudication - does not weigh strongly in its favor. One of Animal Control's primary purposes is the enforcement of animal control laws and we cannot say that its interest in resolving disputes over its enforcement efforts is insignificant. Nonetheless, the only specific prejudice that would have accrued to Animal Control from the relaxation of this filing deadline was further delay in the collection of Gilbert's fine.
19. In her reply brief Gilbert argues that Sheehan v. University of Alaska supports her position. The situation in Sheehan, however, is clearly distinguishable from the current circumstances. Most importantly, Sheehan's opponents consented to the extension of time while Gilbert's did not consent to a late appeal. Moreover, Sheehan was at most two weeks beyond the applicable deadline (though she had already been granted two extensions of time), whereas Gilbert's appeal was filed over nine months late. Further, Sheehan had a reasonable excuse for the delay - apparent abandonment of her case by her attorney - while Gilbert's excuse is unreasonable. Finally, Sheehan was arguably not at fault for the delay but Gilbert's predicament is apparently of her own making.
20. After reviewing these considerations, we are not left with the firm conviction that the superior court erred by denying Gilbert's motion to accept her late appeal. Our decision is based primarily on the fact that Gilbert's appeal does not seek to defend any interests sufficiently important to justify ignoring the rule, the length of her delay, and the absence of any satisfactory explanation for that delay. Given these facts, we think it was well within the superior court's discretion to deny Gilbert's motion. Gilbert has waived any argument regarding the superior court's decision to reject her motions to waive or reduce the cost bond and filing fees.
21. On June 13, 2003 Gilbert received another ticket from Animal Control. According
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|