Alonzo J. Graham v. Dr. James Koenig and Kathy Reid
Alonzo J. Graham v. Dr. James Koenig and Kathy Reid
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ALONZO J. GRAHAM, Case No. 23-cv-263 (LMP/DLM) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DR. JAMES KOENIG and KATHY REID, Defendants.
On September 30, 2025, the Court entered an order adopting the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko and dismissing Plaintiff Alonzo J. Graham’s claims with prejudice. See generally ECF No. 256. Judgment was entered the same day. ECF No. 257. Graham has since filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal with the Eighth Circuit, ECF No. 259, and two motions requesting free copies of several documents filed in this matter that he states he needs to appeal the judgement entered in this matter, ECF Nos. 258, 260.
Beginning with Graham’s motion for an extension of the deadline to file a notice of appeal, a district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: (1) the motion is filed within thirty days of the original deadline to file a notice of appeal; and (2) the moving party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Here, Graham’s notice of appeal was due on October 30, 2025. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Graham filed his motion to extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal on October 27, 2025, ECF No. 259, so his motion is timely.
The inquiry as to whether a party has shown good cause or excusable neglect is an “equitable one” that takes “account of all relevant circumstances.” Gibbons v. United States, 317 F.3d 852, 854 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Courts may consider several factors, including potential prejudice to other parties, the length of the delay at issue, and the “good faith” of the party seeking an extension of the filing deadline. Id. The most important factor, however, is the “nature, credibility and persuasiveness” of the reason provided for the delay. Miller v. Minnesota, No. 08-cv-6555 (JRT/JJG), 2009 WL 3062012, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2009) (citing Gibbons, 317 F.3d at 854).
Graham, who is a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City (“MCF-Rush City”), Minnesota, seeks an extension primarily because of purported delays in receiving items he has requested from the Minnesota State Law Library, including a copy of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and copies of legal decisions, which he presumably needs to mount his appeal. See ECF No. 259. He states that these requests take a minimum of two to three weeks and that he has been informed that the delay is due to issues with mail delivery. Id. Setting aside Graham’s unsubstantiated allegation that MCF-Rush City employees are “interfering with [his] legal mail,” id., the Court finds Graham’s explanation plausible given the record in this matter relating to delays in the delivery of mail to and from Graham over the course of these proceedings. See ECF Nos. 63, 244. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for Graham to file a notice of appeal and will extend that deadline for thirty days—that is, through November 30, 20251—which is the maximum extension permitted under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C).
Turning to Graham’s requests for free copies of various filings in the docket, Graham states that he is indigent and is unable to pay the fees associated with printing copies of those filings. ECF No. 260 at 1. Specifically, Graham requests copies of: (1) a motion in limine he filed, ECF No. 249; (2) two declarations in support of that motion, ECF Nos. 250–51; (3) a letter he wrote to the Court relating to the motion, ECF No. 252; (4) the certificate of service associated with the previously named filings, ECF No. 253; (5) his objections to the R&R, ECF No. 254; and (6) the exhibits he filed in support of his objections, ECF No. 255. Although each of these documents are Graham’s own filings, the Court notes that they appear to be the handwritten original copies he sent to the Court.
Given the circumstances, the Court assumes that Graham either did not or was unable to create copies of those documents prior to sending them. Therefore, given that the Court has extended the time for Graham to file his notice of appeal, and in the interest of ensuring Graham has these documents for the purpose of raising issues in his appeal, the Court grants Graham’s request and will direct the Clerk of Court to mail copies of the documents Graham identified to him.
1 The Court notes that November 30, 2025, is a Sunday, so Graham’s notice of appeal must be received by Monday, December 1, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(C).
ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Graham’s Motion for Extension of Appeal Deadline (ECF No. 259) is GRANTED; 2. The deadline for Graham to file a notice of appeal is extended by 30 days, as set forth above; 3. Graham’s Motions for Free Copies (ECF Nos. 258, 260) are GRANTED; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a current copy of the docket sheet for this matter along with copies of ECF Nos. 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, and to Graham at the address listed for Graham in this matter.
Dated: November 4, 2025 s/ Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ALONZO J. GRAHAM, Case No. 23-cv-263 (LMP/DLM) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DR. JAMES KOENIG and KATHY REID, Defendants.
On September 30, 2025, the Court entered an order adopting the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko and dismissing Plaintiff Alonzo J. Graham’s claims with prejudice. See generally ECF No. 256. Judgment was entered the same day. ECF No. 257. Graham has since filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal with the Eighth Circuit, ECF No. 259, and two motions requesting free copies of several documents filed in this matter that he states he needs to appeal the judgement entered in this matter, ECF Nos. 258, 260.
Beginning with Graham’s motion for an extension of the deadline to file a notice of appeal, a district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: (1) the motion is filed within thirty days of the original deadline to file a notice of appeal; and (2) the moving party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Here, Graham’s notice of appeal was due on October 30, 2025. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Graham filed his motion to extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal on October 27, 2025, ECF No. 259, so his motion is timely.
The inquiry as to whether a party has shown good cause or excusable neglect is an “equitable one” that takes “account of all relevant circumstances.” Gibbons v. United States, 317 F.3d 852, 854 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Courts may consider several factors, including potential prejudice to other parties, the length of the delay at issue, and the “good faith” of the party seeking an extension of the filing deadline. Id. The most important factor, however, is the “nature, credibility and persuasiveness” of the reason provided for the delay. Miller v. Minnesota, No. 08-cv-6555 (JRT/JJG), 2009 WL 3062012, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2009) (citing Gibbons, 317 F.3d at 854).
Graham, who is a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City (“MCF-Rush City”), Minnesota, seeks an extension primarily because of purported delays in receiving items he has requested from the Minnesota State Law Library, including a copy of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and copies of legal decisions, which he presumably needs to mount his appeal. See ECF No. 259. He states that these requests take a minimum of two to three weeks and that he has been informed that the delay is due to issues with mail delivery. Id. Setting aside Graham’s unsubstantiated allegation that MCF-Rush City employees are “interfering with [his] legal mail,” id., the Court finds Graham’s explanation plausible given the record in this matter relating to delays in the delivery of mail to and from Graham over the course of these proceedings. See ECF Nos. 63, 244. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for Graham to file a notice of appeal and will extend that deadline for thirty days—that is, through November 30, 20251—which is the maximum extension permitted under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C).
Turning to Graham’s requests for free copies of various filings in the docket, Graham states that he is indigent and is unable to pay the fees associated with printing copies of those filings. ECF No. 260 at 1. Specifically, Graham requests copies of: (1) a motion in limine he filed, ECF No. 249; (2) two declarations in support of that motion, ECF Nos. 250–51; (3) a letter he wrote to the Court relating to the motion, ECF No. 252; (4) the certificate of service associated with the previously named filings, ECF No. 253; (5) his objections to the R&R, ECF No. 254; and (6) the exhibits he filed in support of his objections, ECF No. 255. Although each of these documents are Graham’s own filings, the Court notes that they appear to be the handwritten original copies he sent to the Court.
Given the circumstances, the Court assumes that Graham either did not or was unable to create copies of those documents prior to sending them. Therefore, given that the Court has extended the time for Graham to file his notice of appeal, and in the interest of ensuring Graham has these documents for the purpose of raising issues in his appeal, the Court grants Graham’s request and will direct the Clerk of Court to mail copies of the documents Graham identified to him.
1 The Court notes that November 30, 2025, is a Sunday, so Graham’s notice of appeal must be received by Monday, December 1, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(C).
ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Graham’s Motion for Extension of Appeal Deadline (ECF No. 259) is GRANTED; 2. The deadline for Graham to file a notice of appeal is extended by 30 days, as set forth above; 3. Graham’s Motions for Free Copies (ECF Nos. 258, 260) are GRANTED; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a current copy of the docket sheet for this matter along with copies of ECF Nos. 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, and to Graham at the address listed for Graham in this matter.
Dated: November 4, 2025 s/ Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.