Perez v. Empire City Casino
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03330
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Juana Perez v. Empire City Casino, Judge Swain denied Perez’s untimely request to extend her appeal deadline and warned against further such motions.
Juana Perez, whose second request for more time to file an appeal was denied and whose ability to file further motions was limited by the court’s warning.
What happened
In Juana Perez v. Empire City Casino, the court considered Perez’s second request for more time to file an appeal. The case had already been closed after the court dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Perez did not file an amended complaint.
Perez filed a notice of appeal and asked for an extension of the appeal deadline. The court had already denied an earlier extension request as untimely, but Perez filed another request on September 10, 2025.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the new extension request as untimely and directed the clerk to terminate it. The court said it would not consider further requests of this type, warned that another could lead to a filing restriction, and denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Empire City Casino · No. 1:23-cv-03330
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 12, 2025
Background
Juana Perez filed the action without a lawyer. On May 16, 2023, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it lacked authority to decide the case. The court gave Perez 30 days to file an amended complaint. Because she did not do so, the clerk entered judgment dismissing the action on July 5, 2023.
On September 23, 2024, Perez moved to reopen the action. The court treated her filings as a request for relief from the judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied that request on September 24, 2024.
Current motion
Perez filed a notice of appeal on August 6, 2025, and also moved for more time to file the notice of appeal. The court denied that extension request on August 8, 2025, because it was untimely. On September 10, 2025, Perez filed another motion seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Ruling
The court denied Perez’s recent motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as untimely, for the same reasons stated in its earlier order. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion and stated that the action was closed.
The court also stated that it would not consider any further motions for an extension to file a notice of appeal. It warned Perez that, if she filed another such motion, the court would direct her to explain why she should not be barred from filing documents in the action without first obtaining the court’s permission. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.