Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2024

Gonzalez v. Dobbs Ferry Village

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-07617
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gonzalez v. Dobbs Ferry Village, Judge Swain denied Gonzalez’s late appeal-extension motion and denied IFP status for appeal.

Who this affects

Omayra Gonzalez was affected: the court denied her request for more time to appeal and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for that appeal.

What happened

In Gonzalez v. Dobbs Ferry Village, Omayra Gonzalez, who represented herself, asked for more time to appeal after the court had dismissed her case for failure to state a claim. The dismissal and judgment were entered on February 9, 2023.

The court said Gonzalez had until March 13, 2023, to appeal. She did not ask for an extension until February 7, 2024, and she did not argue that she lacked timely notice of the judgment. The court therefore could not extend the appeal deadline.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Gonzalez’s motion for an extension of time to appeal. The court also determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied her permission to proceed without paying filing fees for that appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gonzalez v. Dobbs Ferry Village · No. 1:22-cv-07617
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 8, 2024

Background

Omayra Gonzalez filed this action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. On February 6, 2023, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal order and judgment were entered on February 9, 2023. On February 7, 2024, the court received Gonzalez’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

Reasoning

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) generally requires a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of the order or judgment. Rule 4(a)(5) allows a court to extend that time only if the extension motion is filed no later than 30 days after the appeal deadline expires, and the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. The court described that 30-day period as a strict jurisdictional deadline.

The court calculated Gonzalez’s appeal deadline as March 13, 2023, because March 11 fell on a Saturday. Gonzalez’s extension motion was filed more than 30 days after that deadline. The court also noted that Gonzalez did not argue that she had failed to receive notice of the judgment. Although Rule 4(a)(6) can provide another route to an extension when a party did not receive timely notice of the judgment, the court concluded that route was unavailable here.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Gonzalez’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so Gonzalez was denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.