Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

for filing the brief or appendix." 11th Cir. Rule 31-2(e). Accordingly, the clerk
did not have the authority to file — and did not file — Ramirez's April 12, 2016,
untimely motion for extension of time.
Petitioner argues that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 25(a)(4)
required the clerk to file Ramirez's tardy April 12, 2016, motion for extension of
time to file his appendix. (Petition, p. 10.) Rule 25(a)(4) states that the "clerk
must not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented . . . solely because it is not
presented in proper form as required by these rules or by any local rule or
practice." However, in this case, the substance of Ramirez's April 12, 2016,
motion consisted of seeking an additional, untimely, extension of time to file his
appendix; "form" was not the issue.
Further, Rule 25(a)(1) states that a "paper required or permitted to be filed
in a court of appeals must be filed with the clerk." F.R.A.P. 25(a)(1) (emphasis
added). Rule 25 does not require the clerk to file a paper that is not authorized to
be filed.8 And the Eleventh Circuit, per Rule 31-2(e), does not authorize the clerk
to file an untimely motion for extension of time to file an appendix.
Petitioner goes on to state that the April 12, 2016, motion should have been
filed because "Ramirez properly presented his request by written motion" under
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(1). (Petition, p. 10.)
8 Nor does Rule 45 require a clerk to file a document that is not permitted to be filed, despite
Ramirez's contentions to the contrary, set forth on page 15 of his Petition.
17