Aponte v. New York State
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08707
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aponte v. New York State, Judge McMahon denied reconsideration because Aponte had not paid fees or submitted required forms.
John Aponte’s case remained closed after the court denied his reconsideration motion; the court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal from this order. New York State was the defendant named in the case.
What happened
In Aponte v. New York State, the court had dismissed John Aponte’s complaint without prejudice after he failed to submit a fee-waiver application and prisoner authorization or pay the filing fees. The Clerk entered judgment, and Aponte appealed.
Aponte later sent a letter asking the court to reconsider the dismissal and asking whether it had received his request about an imminent-danger injury. He did not include the required application or authorization. The court determined that it could consider the letter even though he had filed an appeal.
Judge McMahon denied the motion because Aponte still had not followed the earlier order. The case remained closed, and the court denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order after certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Aponte v. New York State · No. 1:19-cv-08707
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 4, 2019
Background
On September 24, 2019, the court ordered John Aponte, within 30 days, either to submit an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees (an in forma pauperis application) and a prisoner authorization, or to pay the filing fees. After Aponte failed to do so, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and the Clerk entered judgment on October 28, 2019. Aponte filed a notice of appeal.
After the appeal was transmitted to the Court of Appeals, the district court received Aponte’s November 10, 2019 letter. He asked the court to reconsider the dismissal and asked whether it had received his letter requesting consideration of an “imminent danger injury.” He did not attach an in forma pauperis application or prisoner authorization.
Motion and Jurisdiction
The court treated Aponte’s submission as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Because Aponte had filed a notice of appeal, the court first considered whether it still had authority to decide the motion. The court concluded that it did. Aponte filed the motion within 28 days after judgment and filed his notice of appeal before the district court ruled on the motion. Under the cited appellate rules, the notice of appeal did not become effective until the district court decided the motion.
Ruling
The court denied the motion. It explained that Aponte had not complied with the September 24 order requiring him either to submit the required application and authorization or to pay the filing fees. The court stated that the case would remain closed until he addressed that deficiency.
The court directed the Clerk to mail Aponte a copy of the order and note service on the docket. It also 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-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.