The opinion of the court was delivered by: Name of Assigned Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal  is respectfully denied on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion.
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
On May 23, 2011, this Court issued a memorandum opinion and order  granting summary judgment for Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's sole federal claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act and dismissing Plaintiff's remaining state law claims without prejudice. Judgment was entered on the same date .
On June 21, 2011, Defendant City of Chicago timely filed a bill of costs and supporting materials . On July 12, 2011, Plaintiff -- through Attorney David Miley, who had represented Plaintiff since March 2009 [see 30] -- filed objections  to the bill of costs based in part on Plaintiff's inability to pay. On July 22, 2011, Mr. Miley filed on behalf of Plaintiff an in forma pauperis affidavit and financial affidavit (executed by Plaintiff on July 16)  to demonstrate Plaintiff's financial circumstances.
On July 22, Plaintiff also filed a motion to substitute the appearance of new counsel, Teresa Searcy Woods . On July 29, 2011, the Court entered an order  in which it (1) granted the motion to substitute and (2) declined to impose costs on Plaintiff in view of Plaintiff's indigence. Although only one motion was filed by Plaintiff on July 22, the notice of motion that accompanied the motion to substitute counsel  also stated that Plaintiff had filed a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
On July 29, the Clerk's Office placed on the docket an entry entitled "Notice of Correction"  noting the apparent filing error. On August 4, substitute counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal . After an extended discussion with counsel during the August 16 hearing on the motion, the Court set a briefing schedule, pursuant to which counsel have provided their clients' respective positions [92, 97] on the motion.
If a party wishes to appeal but has failed to file a notice of appeal within the initial 30 day time period allowed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), Rule 4(a)(5) authorizes a district court to extend the time to appeal "if a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires" and the party "shows excusable neglect or good cause."
The timely filing of a notice of appeal is "mandatory and jurisdictional" and courts have "no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212-14 (2007); see also Buggs v. Elgin, Joliet & E. Ry. Co., 852 F.2d 318, 323 (7th Cir. 1988) (any extension of the jurisdictional requirement that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days "must not exceed 30 days from the original filing date"); United States ex rel. Leonard, 788 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1986) (explaining that Rule 4(a) "prohibits consideration of excusable neglect or good cause where an appellant fails to file a timely motion requesting an extension of time") (emphasis added); see also id. (noting that the fact that the appellant is "proceeding pro se does not warrant an exception to the Rule"). Plaintiff takes the position that even though no motion was filed within sixty days of the entry ...