Shi v. Delta Realty Group
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-05349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shuanglong Shi v. Delta Realty Group, LLC, Judge Ho granted Shi more time to appeal but denied his request to proceed without paying fees, without prejudice.
Shuanglong Shi, who obtained a timely appeal but was denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees unless he submits a complete amended application within 30 days.
What happened
In Shuanglong Shi v. Delta Realty Group, LLC, Shuanglong Shi asked for more time to appeal an earlier order granting Delta Realty Group, LLC summary judgment. He also asked to appeal without paying filing fees in advance.
The court granted Shi’s request for more time and ruled that his notice of appeal was timely because he said he had moved and received the court’s earlier order late. The court denied his request to proceed without paying fees because he did not provide enough information about his income, assets, expenses, and ability to pay. The denial was without prejudice, and the court gave him 30 days to submit a complete application.
Judge Dale E. Ho also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so fee-free appeal status was denied for this order. The clerk was directed to close the two motions, update Shi’s address, and mail him the order.
The detailed version
- Shi v. Delta Realty Group · No. 1:23-cv-05349
- Ho
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
Shuanglong Shi filed a motion for more time to file a notice of appeal and separately filed a motion to proceed on appeal without prepaying filing fees. The appeal concerns the court’s July 16, 2025 opinion and order granting Delta Realty Group, LLC’s motion for summary judgment.
Extension of Time
The court found that Shi’s request for an extension was untimely. But Shi stated that he had moved to a new address and was delayed in receiving the July 16 order by mail. Considering the delayed receipt and Shi’s status as a self-represented litigant, the court granted the motion for an extension retroactively. It ruled that Shi’s notice of appeal would be treated as timely.
Request to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees
Shi’s application stated that he received monthly retirement income but provided no additional information about his income, assets, expenses, or other financial circumstances. Because the application lacked information needed to determine whether he could pay the fees, the court denied the request to proceed without prepaying fees. The denial was without prejudice, meaning Shi could submit a corrected application.
The court gave Shi one final opportunity to provide the missing information. He could submit an amended application within 30 days of the order and was required to answer every question, including questions about income sources, assets, and monthly expenses. If he did not reapply within 30 days, the court would assume that he no longer sought fee-free appeal status.
Certification About Appeal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order.
Clerk’s Directions
The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions, update Shi’s address based on the information in his filing, mail him a copy of the order at that address, and record service on the docket.
Disposition
The motion for an extension of time was granted retroactively, and the notice of appeal was deemed timely. The motion to proceed on appeal without prepaying fees was denied without prejudice. Fee-free status for an appeal from this order was also denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.