Haywood v. Andre Bakers Funeral Home
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-04275
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Haywood v. Andre Bakers Funeral Home, Judge Swain said she lacked authority over reopening and reconsideration motions, would grant them if remanded, and denied appeal fee-waiver request as moot.
Nicole Haywood’s motions and appeal-related fee request were directly affected. The earlier dismissal without prejudice had dismissed the claims of Taisha Haywood, Lavaughn Haywood, and Nicole Haywood.
What happened
In Haywood v. Andre Bakers Funeral Home, the court had dismissed the claims of Taisha Haywood, Lavaughn Haywood, and Nicole Haywood without prejudice after they did not respond to an order requiring further action. Nicole Haywood later appealed and asked to reopen the case and reconsider the dismissal, saying a clerical error caused the problem.
Because Nicole had already appealed, the Court of Appeals had authority over the parts of the case involved in the appeal. The district court therefore said it could not decide Nicole’s reopening and reconsideration motions because they were filed more than 28 days after judgment. It also treated her request to proceed without paying appeal fees as moot because the court had already denied that request.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain said the court would grant the reopening and reconsideration motions if the Court of Appeals sent the case back for that purpose. She denied Nicole’s appeal fee-waiver motion as moot and certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Haywood v. Andre Bakers Funeral Home · No. 1:24-cv-04275
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 10, 2025
Background
The court had previously ordered Taisha Haywood and Lavaughn Haywood to pay the filing fee or ask to have it waived and to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with both signatures. The court also directed all three plaintiffs to tell the court whether they intended to continue with the case. The plaintiffs did not respond.
On October 22, 2024, the court dismissed Taisha Haywood’s and Lavaughn Haywood’s claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). It dismissed Nicole Haywood’s claims without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order under Rule 41(b). The Clerk entered judgment on October 24, 2024. The court also certified that an appeal from the dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
Nicole Haywood’s Motions and Appeal
Nicole Haywood filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 2024, and attached a request to proceed on appeal without paying fees. The appeal was sent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on December 16, 2024. She later filed a motion “to reopen” the case and a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1), asserting that a clerical error involving her email address caused the dismissal. The court assumed that the motion “to reopen” should be treated as another motion for reconsideration.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed parts of a case to the Court of Appeals. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, when the district court lacks authority to grant a motion because an appeal is pending, it may defer the motion, deny it, or state that it would grant the motion if the Court of Appeals sends the case back.
The court concluded that it lacked authority to decide Nicole Haywood’s reopening and reconsideration motions because they were filed more than 28 days after judgment. It nevertheless stated that it would grant both motions if the Court of Appeals remanded the case, because Nicole had not received the court’s July 17, 2024 order.
Disposition
The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion “to reopen” and the motion for reconsideration, but would grant both motions if the Court of Appeals remanded the case for that purpose. It denied Nicole Haywood’s motion to proceed without paying appeal fees as moot because the court had already denied leave to proceed without fees in its October 22, 2024 dismissal order. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Nicole Haywood, directed her to confirm her correct email address if she wanted to continue receiving documents electronically, and certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.