Duncan v. Marks Taxidermy aka Pets Forever
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-07894
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Judi Duncan v. Marks Taxidermy, Judge Swain denied Duncan’s Rule 60(b) motion and denied fee-free appeal status.
Judi Duncan’s motion was denied, the action remains closed, and she was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order also warned that future meritless filings could lead to filing restrictions.
What happened
In Judi Duncan v. Marks Taxidermy aka Pets Forever; Morgan Stanley Bank, the court had previously dismissed Duncan’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and gave her 30 days to file an amended complaint. She did not do so, and the Clerk entered judgment dismissing the action.
Duncan later asked for more time to file an amended complaint. The court treated that request as a motion seeking relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court had already denied an earlier request of the same kind, and it denied this motion for the same reasons.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Duncan’s Rule 60(b) motion, stated that the action was closed, and denied her permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court also warned that continued meritless motions could lead to restrictions on filing new documents in the action.
The detailed version
- Duncan v. Marks Taxidermy aka Pets Forever · No. 1:24-cv-07894
- Laura Swain
- July 15, 2026
Background
Judi Duncan filed the action without a lawyer. On November 20, 2024, the court dismissed her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and gave her 30 days to file an amended complaint. Duncan did not file one, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment dismissing the action on February 2, 2025.
Motion
On September 16, 2025, Duncan filed another motion seeking more time to file an amended complaint. The court construed the motion as one seeking relief from the judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated that it denied the motion for the same reasons it had denied Duncan’s earlier Rule 60(b) motion.
Ruling
The court denied Duncan’s Rule 60(b) motion. It stated that the action was closed. The court also warned that, if Duncan continued filing meritless motions, it could require her to explain why she should not be barred from filing new documents in the action, except documents captioned for the Court of Appeals, without prior court permission. 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 Duncan permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.