Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 2, 2025

Saunders v. Cardali

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-01905
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Saunders v. Cardali: Judge Swain granted Saunders more time to file an amended complaint, setting a February 7, 2025 deadline.

Who this affects

Marvin Saunders received additional time to file an amended complaint. The defendants are affected by the revised case deadline, and Saunders was denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

What happened

In Saunders v. Cardali, the court had previously given Marvin Saunders 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Saunders sent letters reporting an illness and asking about the filing deadline. The court treated the letters as a request for more time and granted it, requiring Saunders to file the amended complaint by February 7, 2025.

Judge Swain also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Saunders permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Saunders v. Cardali · No. 1:24-cv-01905
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 2, 2025

Background

On November 15, 2024, the court gave Plaintiff Marvin Saunders 30 days to file an amended complaint. Saunders later submitted letters dated December 11 and December 20, 2024. One letter informed the court that he was ill, and the other asked about the deadline for filing his complaint.

Motion and Ruling

The court treated Saunders’s letters as a motion, or request, for an extension of time to file the amended complaint. The court granted the motion and ordered Saunders to file the amended complaint on or before February 7, 2025.

Appeal-Fee Ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Saunders permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal. The order did not address the merits of the underlying claims or the contents of the amended complaint.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.