Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 16, 2020

Martinez v. LaManna

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-03348
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Martinez v. LaManna, Judge Briccetti denied Rafael Martinez’s request to appeal without paying fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Who this affects

Rafael Martinez’s ability to pursue an appeal without paying filing fees; the opinion does not state whether the appeal itself was dismissed or otherwise resolved.

What happened

In Martinez v. LaManna, the court had previously dismissed Rafael Martinez’s complaint against Jamie LaManna and Robert Bentivegna, and judgment had been entered.

Martinez later filed a notice of appeal and asked to proceed with the appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion states that he had been represented by counsel in the case.

Judge Briccetti certified that an appeal from the judgment or the earlier dismissal order would not be taken in good faith, and he therefore denied Martinez’s request to proceed without paying fees on appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Martinez v. LaManna · No. 7:19-cv-03348
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Sept. 16, 2020

Background

The court stated that, in an April 28, 2020 Opinion and Order, it granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The Clerk entered judgment on April 29, 2020. The opinion also stated that Rafael Martinez was represented by counsel in the matter.

On July 25, 2020, Martinez dated a notice of appeal, which the court received on August 3, 2020. On September 9, 2020, the court received Martinez’s motion to proceed on appeal without paying the required fees.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment or the April 28 Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Martinez’s motion to proceed without paying fees for the appeal. This order addressed the fee request; it did not reconsider the earlier dismissal ruling.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.