Rosenberg v. City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-03911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rosenberg v. City of New York, Judge Stanton denied plaintiffs’ request and said their appeals were premature because no final order had issued.
The order affects Rudy Rosenberg, Jacqueline Rosenberg, and Eltha Jordan by denying their latest request, requiring action on their filing-fee applications or payment of the filing fees, and postponing processing of their notices of appeal unless the case is later dismissed.
What happened
Rosenberg v. City of New York involves Rudy Rosenberg, Jacqueline Rosenberg, and Eltha Jordan’s failure to submit requests to proceed without paying the filing fee or pay the required fees. The court had given them two deadlines and warned that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if they did not comply by September 11, 2020.
The plaintiffs later submitted an unsigned request seeking reconsideration and other relief. The court denied that request for the same reasons it had denied their earlier submissions. The plaintiffs also filed notices of appeal, but the court said those appeals were premature because the court had issued only nonfinal orders that had not been approved for an immediate appeal.
Judge Stanton did not dismiss the case in this order. He stated that if the plaintiffs failed to comply and the case was dismissed, the Clerk would then be directed to process the notices of appeal. The court also directed the Clerk to mail the order to the plaintiffs and record that service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Rosenberg v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-03911
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs are Rudy Rosenberg, Jacqueline Rosenberg, and Eltha Jordan. On May 22, 2020, the court directed them either to submit completed applications to proceed without paying the civil filing fee, called IFP applications, or to pay the $400 filing fees. They did not comply. On August 12, 2020, the court issued a second order giving them thirty days to submit the applications and warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order also directed Jacqueline Rosenberg and Eltha Jordan to submit motions to reopen.
The September 4 order states that the plaintiffs still had not complied. It gives them until September 11, 2020, to submit the required documents and states that the matter will then be dismissed without prejudice if they do not do so.
Request for Reconsideration
On August 26, 2020, the plaintiffs submitted an unsigned order to show cause seeking reconsideration and other relief. An order to show cause is a request asking the court to require another party to explain why requested relief should not be granted. The court denied this request because it was substantially similar to the plaintiffs’ earlier submissions, which the court had denied in orders dated July 20 and August 12, 2020.
Notices of Appeal
The plaintiffs submitted notices of appeal on August 9, 2020. The court held that the notices were premature because the orders issued so far were nonfinal and had not been certified for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the district court case has ended, when the rules permit immediate review of a nonfinal order. The court stated that if the plaintiffs failed to comply with the August 12 order and the matter was dismissed as a result, it would then direct the Clerk of Court to process the notices of appeal.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the August 26 order to show cause. The order did not itself dismiss the complaint, and it did not direct immediate processing of the notices of appeal. Instead, it set a September 11 deadline, stated that dismissal without prejudice would follow if the plaintiffs did not comply, and explained that the notices of appeal would be processed if that dismissal occurred. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiffs and note service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.