Harte v. Pace University
- Vargas
- 1:22-cv-03820
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Harte v. Pace University, Judge Vargas denied Wendy Harte’s request to appeal without paying fees, finding the interlocutory appeal not taken in good faith.
Wendy Harte’s request to proceed without paying fees for her appeal from the May 1, 2025 order was denied. The ruling also affects the attempted interlocutory appeal from that order, which the court found could not be taken.
What happened
In Harte v. Pace University, Wendy Harte, representing herself, asked to appeal an order that denied her request to amend her complaint and seek sanctions against the defendants. She also filed a separate appeal involving a discovery order, but this decision concerned only the appeal from the May 1, 2025 order.
The court explained that a person may appeal without paying fees only when the appeal is taken in good faith. It found Harte’s proposed appeal lacked merit and challenged an order that was not a final judgment. The May 1 order had not been made immediately appealable under the rule allowing certain partial final judgments.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas certified that the appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Harte’s request to proceed without paying fees for that appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the docket entries for the application.
The detailed version
- Harte v. Pace University · No. 1:22-cv-03820
- Vargas
- June 12, 2025
Background
Wendy Harte, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Pace University and several individuals. The opinion states that her claims included race discrimination, retaliation, and defamation per se. In a March 29, 2024 order, Judge Andrew L. Carter dismissed Harte’s racial-discrimination, harassment, and defamation-per-se claims, as well as all claims against Marvin Krislov.
After the case was reassigned to Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, Harte moved for permission to amend her complaint, restore claims previously dismissed by Judge Carter, and impose sanctions on the defendants. On May 1, 2025, the court denied that motion. Harte then filed an interlocutory appeal from the May 1 order and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the usual appellate fees in advance. The opinion also notes that she filed a separate appeal concerning a discovery order, but this ruling addresses the application connected to the May 1 order.
Harte’s Application and the Legal Standard
Harte stated that the court had not allowed her to amend her Second Amended Complaint and had not imposed sanctions against the defendants. She provided no further explanation for why the appeal would be proper.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a district court may deny permission to proceed without paying fees if it certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court explained that this is an objective standard and that an appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Court’s Ruling
The court relied on the reasons given in its May 1 order and stated that Harte’s requests to amend her complaint and impose sanctions were without merit. It also held that the May 1 order was interlocutory rather than final. The court explained that appellate jurisdiction generally covers final judgments, and that the May 1 order did not direct entry of a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). As a result, the court concluded that Harte could not take an interlocutory appeal from that order.
Judge Vargas certified under Section 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the May 1 order would not be taken in good faith and denied Harte’s request to proceed without paying fees for that appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate docket entries 116 and 118.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.