Gardner v. Miller
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04970
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Daquan Gardner v. Mark Miller, Judge Swain denied an appeal-extension request as unnecessary because Gardner’s notice was timely and denied fee-free appeal status.
Daquan Gardner’s request for more time to appeal was denied as unnecessary, and his permission to appeal without paying fees was denied for any appeal from this order. The defendants were not the subjects of the rulings described.
What happened
Daquan Gardner v. Mark Miller concerns Gardner’s request for more time to appeal after the court dismissed his action and judgment was entered.
Gardner, who filed without a lawyer, submitted a motion for more time and a notice of appeal on September 16, 2025. The judgment had been entered on August 21, 2025.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request as unnecessary because the notice was received within the 30-day deadline. She also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.
The detailed version
- Gardner v. Miller · No. 1:25-cv-04970
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
Daquan Gardner filed the action without a lawyer. The court had dismissed the action by an order dated August 15, 2025, and the Clerk entered judgment on August 21, 2025. On September 16, 2025, the court received Gardner’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and his notice of appeal.
Ruling on the Extension Motion
The court denied Gardner’s motion for an extension of time to appeal as unnecessary. 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 the judgment was entered on August 21 and the notice of appeal was received on September 16, the court concluded that the appeal was timely. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the extension motion on the docket.
Appeal Fee Status
Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied Gardner permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal from this order. This order addressed the timing of the appeal and the fee-status issue; it did not reconsider the earlier dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.