Reeder v. Hendricks
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-08439
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reeder v. Hendricks, Judge Swain denied an unnecessary extension request because Reeder’s notice of appeal was timely.
Raszell Reeder’s request for more time to file a notice of appeal was denied; his notice of appeal remained timely, but the court denied permission to appeal this order without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Reeder v. Hendricks, Raszell Reeder asked for more time to file a notice of appeal. The court had previously dismissed his action under a federal statute concerning prisoners who repeatedly file qualifying cases without paying fees.
The court received Reeder’s notice of appeal on December 9, 2024. Because the judgment was entered on November 21, the deadline was December 22, so the notice was timely and no extension was needed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for an extension of time and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. She also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Reeder permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Reeder v. Hendricks · No. 1:24-cv-08439
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
Raszell Reeder filed this action without a lawyer. The court states that Reeder is incarcerated at Midstate Correctional Facility in Marcy, New York. On November 21, 2024, the court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and a civil judgment was entered that day.
On December 9, 2024, the court received Reeder’s notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, along with a motion asking for more time to file the notice.
Analysis
The court explained that a party generally must file a notice of appeal within 30 days after the order or judgment being appealed. It also explained that a party may request an extension after that deadline expires, subject to the applicable rule.
Because the judgment was entered on November 21, 2024, Reeder’s deadline to file a notice of appeal was December 22, 2024. The court received his notice on December 9, before the deadline. The court therefore concluded that the notice was timely and that the extension motion was unnecessary.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, identified as ECF 9, because it was unnecessary. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for an appeal from this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.