Jones v. State of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-00556
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Jones v. Holman: Judge Nathan denied Jones’s reconsideration motion as untimely and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Rafael Arden Jones, Sr.; the order denied his motion for reconsideration and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
What happened
In Jones v. Holman, Rafael Arden Jones, Sr. asked the court to review its judgment for the defendants. The court treated his filing as a request to reconsider the judgment.
Jones’s filing mainly challenged earlier discovery decisions and also sought reconsideration of the court’s summary-judgment decision. The court said the deadlines for challenging those decisions had passed.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion as untimely. She also ruled that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Jones v. State of New York · No. 1:16-cv-00556
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
The court received Rafael Arden Jones, Sr.’s “Request for Review of Judgement” on October 28, 2019. The court interpreted the filing as a motion for reconsideration of the judgment entered for the defendants on September 25, 2019. Jones’s filing mainly sought to revisit discovery disputes. It also appeared to seek reconsideration of the court’s September 24, 2019 summary-judgment opinion.
Reasoning
The court explained that Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires a motion for reconsideration or reargument of an order deciding a motion to be served within 14 days after the court’s decision. It concluded that the deadlines for reconsidering the discovery rulings had passed months earlier. The deadline for seeking reconsideration of the summary-judgment opinion was October 9, 2019, but Jones’s filing was dated October 26, 2019.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Jones’s motion as untimely. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The order resolved Docket No. 193. The opinion states that court staff would mail Jones a copy and record the mailing on the public docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.