Rice v. New York City Housing Authority
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04796
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rice v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Swain denied Rice’s extension request as unnecessary because her appeal was timely and denied fee-free appeal status.
Nicole M. Rice, who filed without a lawyer, and the New York City Housing Authority are affected by the order concerning the timing and fee status of an appeal.
What happened
Nicole M. Rice sued the New York City Housing Authority without a lawyer. The court had dismissed the action on August 12, 2025, and judgment was entered on August 15, 2025. Rice then asked for more time to appeal and filed a notice of appeal.
Judge Swain explained that a civil appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after judgment. Rice’s notice was received 10 days after judgment, so it was timely and did not require an extension.
The court denied Rice’s motion as unnecessary and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. Judge Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for that appeal.
The detailed version
- Rice v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:25-cv-04796
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Nicole M. Rice filed the action without a lawyer. The court had dismissed the action by order dated August 12, 2025, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment on August 15, 2025. The opinion’s footnote states that the earlier dismissal occurred because Rice did not pay the required fees or ask that the fees be waived. Rice said she had emailed a fee-waiver request, but the docket did not show that the request had been filed.
On August 25, 2025, the court received Rice’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and her notice of appeal.
Ruling
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) generally requires a notice of appeal in a civil case to be filed within 30 days after judgment is entered. Because judgment was entered on August 15, 2025, and Rice’s notice of appeal was received on August 25, 2025—10 days later—the court determined that the appeal was timely.
The court therefore denied Rice’s motion for an extension of time to appeal as unnecessary and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion on the docket. The court 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 fee-free status for purposes of such an appeal.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed Rice’s request for more time to appeal; it did not revisit the earlier dismissal of the action. The opinion does not state the result of Rice’s notice of appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.