Perez v. State of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09329
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. State of New York, Judge McMahon denied Perez’s extension request because she gave no reason for missing the appeal deadline.
Juana Perez’s request for more time to appeal was denied, and she was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The defendants were not otherwise affected by this order.
What happened
In Perez v. State of New York, the court had already dismissed Juana Perez’s lawsuit without prejudice as a duplicate of another pending case and entered judgment on October 10, 2019.
Perez later asked for more time to appeal. The court considered the request because it was filed within the permitted period, but the form was blank and gave no reason for the late filing.
Judge McMahon denied the motion because Perez did not show a good reason or excusable neglect. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Perez v. State of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09329
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
The court had dismissed this action without prejudice on October 9, 2019, because it was substantially similar to another action that Juana Perez already had pending in the same court. Judgment was entered on October 10, 2019. The opinion notes that the other action was later dismissed on December 6, 2019, because Perez did not submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees.
Motion and legal standard
On December 9, 2019, Perez asked for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal. In a civil case, a notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after judgment. A district court may extend that deadline when the request is made within the permitted additional period and the party shows either excusable neglect, meaning a legally accepted reason for the delay, or good cause.
Perez filed her request within the additional period, so the court considered whether she had shown excusable neglect or good cause. Her motion was blank and did not explain why she had failed to file a timely notice of appeal.
Ruling
The court held that Perez had not shown excusable neglect or good cause. It therefore denied her motion for an extension of time to appeal. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied 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.