Hernandez-Guevedo v. The NYS Judiciary Branch
Lorgio Rafael Hernandez-Guevedo v. The NYS Judiciary Branch; The Dutchess County; The Public Defender’s Office; Defense Counsel Michelle Bleeker
- Stanton
- 1:26-cv-02379
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez-Guevedo v. NYS Judiciary Branch, Judge Stanton ruled Hernandez-Guevedo may proceed with his appeal without further district-court authorization.
Lorgio Rafael Hernandez-Guevedo’s ability to proceed with his appeal without obtaining additional authorization from the District Court; the order did not decide the merits of the appeal.
What happened
Lorgio Rafael Hernandez-Guevedo v. The NYS Judiciary Branch involved Hernandez-Guevedo’s request to appeal after the District Court dismissed his action and entered judgment. He had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees and filed a similar request for his appeal.
Judge Stanton ruled that Hernandez-Guevedo may proceed without further authorization from the District Court. The court had not found that his appeal was frivolous or made a written finding that it was not brought in good faith, and it had not revoked his previously approved status.
Judge Louis L. Stanton therefore stated that additional approval from the District Court was unnecessary. This order addressed only permission to proceed with the appeal and did not decide whether the appeal would succeed.
The detailed version
- Hernandez-Guevedo v. The NYS Judiciary Branch · No. 1:26-cv-02379
- Stanton
- July 16, 2026
Background
Lorgio Rafael Hernandez-Guevedo brought this action without a lawyer. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had allowed him to proceed without paying the district-court filing fees. The action was later reassigned to Judge Louis L. Stanton.
The District Court dismissed the action on June 1, 2026, and the Clerk entered judgment on June 9, 2026. Hernandez-Guevedo filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 6, 2026. He also filed an application to proceed without paying the appellate filing fees.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) generally allows a person who was allowed to proceed without paying fees in the district court to continue that status on appeal without obtaining another authorization. An exception applies if the district court certifies that the appeal was not brought in good faith or finds that the person is otherwise not entitled to that status and explains why in writing. The opinion explains that “good faith” is judged objectively, including whether the appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue.
The court noted that Hernandez-Guevedo’s previously approved status had not been revoked. The court also had not dismissed the complaint as frivolous and had not certified that the appeal was not brought in good faith.
Ruling
Because his status had not been revoked, the court stated that Hernandez-Guevedo may proceed without further authorization from the District Court. The court said that additional authorization was unnecessary under Rule 24(a). The order did not address the merits of the appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.