Milchamot v. Chief, Bronx District Attorney
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09295
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Milchamot v. Chief, Bronx District Attorney, Judge Swain denied an unnecessary extension because Milchamot’s appeal notice was timely and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Yehuda Milchamot: his notice of appeal was treated as timely, but fee-free status was denied for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Milchamot v. Chief, Bronx District Attorney, the court considered Yehuda Milchamot’s request for more time to appeal after the court had denied his petition challenging his custody under federal law. The court had also denied an earlier request asking it to reconsider that decision.
The court explained that Milchamot’s request to reconsider was filed within the period that affects the appeal deadline. The deadline therefore began when the court entered its order denying reconsideration on February 20, 2025. Because the court received Milchamot’s notice of appeal on February 19, the notice was timely, making more time unnecessary.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Milchamot’s motion for an extension of time to appeal. She also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for that appeal.
The detailed version
- Milchamot v. Chief, Bronx District Attorney · No. 1:24-cv-09295
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
The court had previously denied Yehuda Milchamot’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and entered judgment on January 28, 2025. Milchamot later filed a motion for reconsideration. The court treated that motion as one under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied it. The Clerk entered that order on February 20, 2025.
Before that entry date, on February 19, 2025, the court received Milchamot’s notice of appeal and his motion asking for more time to appeal.
Reasoning
A civil litigant generally has 30 days from the entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. When a Rule 60(b) motion is filed within 28 days after judgment, the appeal period runs from the entry of the order resolving that motion. Because the Clerk entered the order denying Milchamot’s Rule 60(b) motion on February 20, 2025, the 30-day appeal period began on that date. The court concluded that the notice of appeal received on February 19 was timely and that an extension was unnecessary.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Milchamot’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary. 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 and denied fee-free status for the purpose of that appeal. This order addressed the appeal deadline and appeal fee status; it did not revisit the merits of the earlier denial of Milchamot’s petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.