Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni denied certification for an interlocutory appeal and permission to appeal without paying fees.
Eddy Alexandre, who was denied certification for an immediate appeal and permission to proceed without paying filing fees; the order also directed mailing of the decision to him.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Eddy Alexandre asked the court to allow an immediate appeal from orders denying his requests to intervene and to reconsider claims involving the receiver. He also attached a request to pause the case and stop the receiver’s actions while the appeal was pending.
The court said it had already reviewed and denied the request to pause the case. Alexandre was representing himself and argued that the case involved disputed facts, jury-trial rights, and alleged judicial bias.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Alexandre’s request to certify an immediate appeal under federal law. She also denied permission to proceed with the appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal from the relevant order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- May 22, 2025
What was before the court
Eddy Alexandre, representing himself, submitted an emergency filing concerning an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the district-court case is finished. He referred to two earlier orders: one denying his motion to intervene and remove the receiver’s lawsuit from a New York State Supreme Court case, and another denying reconsideration of his counterclaim and crossclaim against the receiver. He also attached a motion seeking to stay all proceedings and enjoin the receiver while appellate motions were pending.
The court’s ruling
The court stated that it had already reviewed and denied the motion to stay. To the extent Alexandre intended his filing to request certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court denied that request. That statute permits an immediate appeal only when the order presents a controlling legal question with substantial disagreement about its answer and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation.
The court also stated that Alexandre’s motion to stay lacked legal authority. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it certified that an interlocutory appeal from the earlier order, or from this order, would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the clerk to mail Alexandre a copy of the order and record the mailing on the docket.
Disposition
The request to certify an interlocutory appeal was denied. Permission to proceed without paying filing fees on the interlocutory appeal was also denied. The order was signed by Judge Valerie Caproni on May 22, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.