Sun v. Mo
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-03630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Sun v. Mo, Judge Failla denied Sun’s request to extend her appeal deadline and denied fee-free status for the appeal.
Yi Sun, whose request to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was denied and whose fee-free status for an appeal was also denied.
What happened
In Sun v. Mo, Yi Sun asked the court to extend the deadline for appealing the case’s earlier dismissal. The court had dismissed the case with prejudice after Sun failed to comply with numerous court orders, and Sun had filed several later motions seeking to undo or pause that dismissal.
The court ruled that Sun had not appealed the dismissal or the order denying her first request to pause it within the required time. Her later motions did not restart the appeal deadline. The court also found that she was outside the additional 30-day period for requesting an extension and had not shown a legally sufficient reason for the delay. It rejected her references to medical problems and unsafe apartment conditions as grounds for an extension.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Sun’s request for more time to appeal. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Sun permission to proceed without paying the required fees for that appeal.
The detailed version
- Sun v. Mo · No. 1:24-cv-03630
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
The court had dismissed Yi Sun’s case with prejudice on December 26, 2024, because she failed to comply with numerous court orders. The opinion states that Sun then made several attempts to undo or pause that dismissal, including motions for emergency orders, motions to stay the dismissal, a request for a “Judicial duel/Combat,” and a request to transfer the case. On June 26, 2025, the court denied Sun’s fifth attempt and warned that additional improper or meritless motions could lead to an order restricting her ability to file new cases without prior permission.
On July 25, 2025, the court docketed Sun’s July 24 motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Her proposed notice sought to appeal judgments and orders entered between August 2, 2024, and June 26, 2025. The court noted that Sun was representing herself and had interpreted her filings liberally, but explained that this did not excuse compliance with procedural rules and mandatory deadlines.
Appeal deadline
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 generally requires a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Certain timely motions can affect when that period begins. The court considered whether Sun’s January 7, 2025 motion to stay the dismissal could be treated as a timely motion for reconsideration, but concluded that Sun still did not timely appeal the January 28, 2025 order denying that motion.
The court held that Sun could not restart the appeal period by filing successive motions to stay and asking the court to treat them as successive reconsideration motions. It also found that her stay motions did not renew substantive or procedural arguments previously made; instead, according to the opinion, they repeated accusations of corruption and prejudice against several judges. Without an extension, the court stated, any appeal would be untimely and the Court of Appeals would lack jurisdiction to hear it.
Extension request
Rule 4 permits a district court to extend the appeal deadline if the request is filed no later than 30 days after the deadline expires and the party shows either “excusable neglect” or “good cause.” The court found that Sun was far beyond the 30-day period for requesting an extension concerning either the December 26, 2024 dismissal order or the January 28, 2025 order denying her first motion to stay. It therefore denied the motion on that ground.
The court separately found that Sun had not shown excusable neglect or good cause. Sun cited limitations from shoulder, neck, and back injuries and allegedly unsafe conditions in her apartment involving “electrical leakage” from an appliance. The court stated that Sun knew about the relevant orders when they were issued, as shown by her responsive filings. It also observed that she had continued actively filing motions during the relevant period. The court concluded that the faulty appliance and her medical issues did not establish the required basis for extending the appeal deadline.
Disposition
The court denied Sun’s request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. It 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 permission to proceed without paying the required fees for the appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Sun a copy of the order at her address of record.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.