FLORES v. CITIBANK, N.A.
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-03665
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Flores v. Citibank, Judge Swain denied an unnecessary appeal-extension motion and denied Flores permission to appeal without paying fees.
Valerie L. Flores’s appeal from the dismissal of her action was affected: her notice of appeal was treated as timely, but her requests for more time and to appeal without paying fees were denied.
What happened
In Flores v. Citibank, N.A., the court had dismissed Valerie L. Flores’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but gave her 30 days to file an amended complaint. She did not do so, and the court entered judgment dismissing the case.
Flores then filed a notice of appeal, asked for more time to appeal, and asked to appeal without paying the filing fees. The court determined that her notice of appeal was filed on time, so no extension was needed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the extension request as unnecessary. She also denied Flores’s requests to appeal without paying fees because the court had certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- FLORES v. CITIBANK, N.A. · No. 1:24-cv-03665
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
The court had previously dismissed Valerie L. Flores’s pro se action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court determined that it could not hear the case. That earlier order gave Flores 30 days to file an amended complaint. After she did not file one within that period, the court entered judgment on November 8, 2024, dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On December 6, 2024, Flores filed a notice of appeal, a motion under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for more time to appeal, a motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and an application to appeal in forma pauperis. Proceeding in forma pauperis means proceeding without paying the required court fees in advance.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after judgment. Because the judgment was entered on November 8, 2024, the deadline was December 9, 2024: the ordinary 30-day period ended on Sunday, December 8, so the deadline moved to the next business day. Flores filed her notice of appeal on December 6, before the deadline. The court therefore found that the notice was timely and that her request for more time was unnecessary.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a trial court may deny permission to appeal without prepaying fees if it certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court had already made that certification in its earlier order and judgment. It relied on that certification in denying Flores’s motion and application to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Flores’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary. The court also denied her motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal and her application to appeal without paying fees. The court further certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for that appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.