RAMIREZ_PetitionFOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI_2_6_2017
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
11<br />
shown.” In re Beverly Mfg. Corp., 778 F.2d 666, 667 (11th Cir. 1985). No bad faith,<br />
culpable negligence, or culpable indifference is evident here.<br />
Second, pro se papers should be construed liberally. Like other circuits, the<br />
Eleventh Circuit does so. See, e.g., Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.<br />
2008). Ramirez was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. In prior papers, he<br />
had informed the Eleventh Circuit that he was homeless and had been living either<br />
in shelters or on the street. He relied on access to public-library computers for legal<br />
research and drafting. And while it is not explicitly in the record, it is reasonable to<br />
infer that Ramirez did not have a printer of his own, and therefore had to rely on a<br />
third-party vendor like FedEx Kinkos. In light of all the facts and circumstances,<br />
that third-party vendor’s mistake constitutes extraordinary circumstances, or at<br />
worst excusable neglect.<br />
Third, the one-day delay was de minimis and caused no real prejudice. This is<br />
evident from opposing counsel’s gracious agreement not to oppose the acceptance of<br />
the corrected brief as timely filed.<br />
Fourth, Ramirez did not actually fail to prosecute his appeal. Although they were<br />
later ordered to be corrected, both Ramirez’s original brief and appendix had been<br />
timely filed. Ramirez timely filed the corrected brief, and the corrected appendix<br />
was filed only one day late. And his motion was explicit in stating that he was not<br />
failing to prosecute the appeal and in requesting that the appeal not be dismissed.<br />
Fifth, although Ramirez had requested and received several extensions of time,<br />
the untimely filing of the corrected appendix was the first instance that Ramirez<br />
had failed to timely file a document in that appeal. The extreme sanction of<br />
dismissal is too harsh to apply to such a venial sin.<br />
Sixth, the Eleventh Circuit routinely grants Ramirez’s requested relief in other<br />
cases—some of which present less meritorious facts. While the cases are legion, we<br />
present a contemporaneous one by way of example. In Robertson v. Social Security