Basciano v. Child Support Enforcement

Background

The court had dismissed Ronald Basciano’s self-represented action on February 4, 2020, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. After that dismissal, Basciano filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and a motion for permission to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees.

Basciano’s extension motion referred to a January 23, 2020 judgment, but the opinion states that no judgment was entered on that date. Instead, the court granted his application to proceed without paying fees in the district court on January 23. The motion also did not identify the court to which he intended to appeal.

Analysis

The court considered whether it could treat the extension motion as a notice of appeal despite its title and technical defects. Under Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal generally must identify the appealing party, the judgment or order being challenged, and the appellate court. The court explained that filings by a self-represented litigant may be read according to their substance rather than their label, and that a filing is effective when it clearly shows an intent to seek appellate review and gives adequate notice.

Basciano filed the motion on February 18, 2020, within the 30-day period for appealing the February 4 order and judgment. Although he listed the wrong date, the court found that his intent to appeal the February 4 order and judgment was clear. Although he did not name the appellate court, the court found that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was the only possible appellate forum. The court therefore concluded that the motion satisfied Rule 3’s requirements.

Ruling

The court construed Basciano’s motion for an extension of time as a timely notice of appeal concerning the February 4, 2020 order and judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to process the appeal. It denied the motion for an extension of time as moot.

The court also denied Basciano’s motion for permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. It stated that Basciano had already been denied that permission in the February 4 order and judgment and that he must seek permission from the Court of Appeals. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.