Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 2, 2025

Mallikarjun v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:25-cv-04045
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Sreeram Mallikarjun v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Judge Woods granted more time to amend the complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Sreeram Mallikarjun, who requested additional time to file an amended complaint and was subject to the court’s filing instructions and continuing deadlines.

What happened

In Sreeram Mallikarjun v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, the plaintiff asked by email for more time to file an amended complaint. The court reminded him that it does not accept correspondence from people without lawyers by email and explained other ways to contact the court.

The court granted the request. Any amended complaint must be filed no later than two weeks after the order. All other deadlines from the court’s July 30, 2025 scheduling order remain in effect.

Judge Gregory H. Woods also determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mallikarjun v. The Travelers Indemnity Company · No. 1:25-cv-04045
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Sept. 2, 2025

What the Order Addressed

On September 2, 2025, the court received Sreeram Mallikarjun’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint by email. The court stated that it does not accept correspondence from self-represented litigants by email. It directed Mallikarjun to communicate with the court by sending or hand-delivering a letter to the Pro Se Intake Unit, emailing the document to the court’s pro se address, or electronically filing the document. The court noted that Mallikarjun had previously been allowed to file documents electronically.

Ruling on the Extension

The court granted Mallikarjun’s email request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint is due no later than two weeks from the date of the order. The court stated that all other deadlines remain in effect and that Mallikarjun must comply with the deadlines in the court’s July 30, 2025 scheduling order.

Appeal-Filing Status

Judge Gregory H. Woods certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required filing fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the claims in the complaint.

Disposition

The request for an extension of time was granted. Permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees was denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.