Doumbia v. Bamba
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doumbia v. Bamba, Judge Swain denied as moot Doumbia’s request to extend the appeal deadline and denied appeal-related IFP status.
Sidi Doumbia’s motion for more time to file a notice of appeal was denied as moot, and her request to proceed without paying appellate fees for an appeal from this order was denied.
What happened
In Doumbia v. Bamba, Sidi Doumbia, who represented herself, asked for more time to file an appeal after the court had dismissed her complaint and entered judgment.
Doumbia filed the request and a notice of appeal on the same day. Because the court sent the notice of appeal to the Second Circuit, it found that the request for more time was no longer necessary.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the extension request as moot. She also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Doumbia permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- Doumbia v. Bamba · No. 1:24-cv-01088
- Laura Swain
- June 17, 2025
Background
Sidi Doumbia filed the action without a lawyer. On October 30, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment. On December 18, 2024, Doumbia filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and, that same day, filed a notice of appeal.
Ruling
The court denied Doumbia’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as moot. The court explained that Doumbia had already filed the notice of appeal and that the court transmitted it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal from this order, meaning Doumbia could not appeal this order without paying the required fees under that status.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed the appeal-extension request and appeal-related filing status. It did not revisit the court’s earlier dismissal of the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.