Hill v. Miller
- Kimba Wood
- 1:15-cv-06256
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hill v. Miller, Judge Wood denied Anthony Hill’s notice of appeal and related requests as premature, without prejudice, because no final judgment existed.
Anthony Hill’s attempted appeal and related requests for appointed counsel and permission to proceed without paying court fees were denied as premature, without prejudice.
What happened
In Hill v. Miller, Anthony Hill filed one document containing a reply to a magistrate judge’s amended recommendation, a notice of appeal, a request for a lawyer on appeal, and a request to proceed without paying court fees during the appeal. His motion to vacate the judgment was still pending.
The court explained that the amended recommendation was not a final order or judgment. It therefore denied the notice of appeal, the request for a lawyer, and the request to proceed without paying fees as premature, without prejudice to refiling them if the court later denied Hill’s motion to vacate.
Judge Wood stated that the court would address the substance of Hill’s reply to the amended recommendation in a later opinion. This order did not decide the pending motion to vacate or the merits of Hill’s claims.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Miller · No. 1:15-cv-06256
- Kimba Wood
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
Anthony Hill’s motion under Rule 60(b)(4), which seeks to vacate a judgment as legally void, was pending before the court. On February 26, 2020, Hill filed a single document containing four items: a reply to Judge Robert Lehrburger’s amended Report and Recommendation; a notice of appeal from that amended recommendation; a motion for appointment of counsel on appeal; and a motion to proceed without paying court fees during the appeal.
Ruling
The court held that the amended Report and Recommendation was not a final order or judgment. Because there was no final judgment from which to appeal, the court denied Hill’s notice of appeal, motion for appointment of counsel, and motion to proceed without paying court fees as premature, without prejudice to refiling those documents if the court denied his pending Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The court stated that it would address the merits of Hill’s reply to the amended Report and Recommendation in a forthcoming opinion. This order did not resolve Hill’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion or the underlying merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.