Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 16, 2025

Davis v. Carty

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-06674
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
11
EmploymentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Davis v. Carty, Judge Swain granted Davis’s extension request in part and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Shianne C. Davis received additional time to file an amended complaint. Beatrice Carty and the other named defendants are affected because the case remained subject to a possible amended complaint and later dismissal under the court’s stated conditions.

What happened

In Davis v. Carty, Shianne C. Davis is representing herself in an employment-discrimination case against Beatrice Carty and other defendants. The court had previously ruled that her complaint did not state a claim for relief and gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint.

Davis asked for more time, until July 13, 2025, to amend her complaint. The court granted that request in part and instead directed her to file an amended complaint within 60 days after this order. The court said it would dismiss the complaint if she missed the deadline and could not show a good reason for the delay.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Davis permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Davis v. Carty · No. 1:24-cv-06674
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 16, 2025

Background

Shianne C. Davis is proceeding without a lawyer in an employment-discrimination case against Beatrice Carty and other defendants. In an order dated March 13, 2025, the court held that Davis’s complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint.

Extension Request

On May 8, 2025, shortly before the deadline expired, Davis asked for an extension of time until July 13, 2025, to file her amended complaint. The court granted the request in part and directed Davis to file the amended complaint within 60 days of the May 16 order. The court attached an employment-discrimination amended-complaint form and encouraged Davis to use it.

The court stated that if Davis did not file an amended complaint by the deadline and could not show good cause for missing it, the court would dismiss the complaint for the reasons stated in the March 13 order. This order did not itself dismiss the complaint.

Appeal Status and Disposition

The court 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 Davis in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. In forma pauperis status allows a person who qualifies to proceed without prepaying court fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain thus granted Davis’s extension request in part, directed her to file an amended complaint within 60 days, and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-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.