Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 1, 2020

Scotto v. City and County of Maui

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-04497
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Scotto v. City and County of Maui, Judge McMahon denied Scotto’s stay and late-appeal-extension motions and fee-free status for an appeal.

Who this affects

Livia Scotto, whose motion to pause the case and motion for more time to appeal were denied, and whose fee-free status for an appeal from this order was also denied.

What happened

In Scotto v. City and County of Maui, the court had previously dismissed the case without prejudice because Scotto was barred from filing a new case without permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and she had not obtained that permission.

Scotto later filed a lengthy document treated as a motion to pause the case and filed an appeal notice with a request for more time. The court found that her request came after the deadline for seeking an extension.

Judge McMahon denied both motions. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Scotto.

The detailed version

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

Case
Scotto v. City and County of Maui · No. 1:20-cv-04497
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Oct. 1, 2020

Background

The court had dismissed this action without prejudice on June 12, 2020. The stated reason was that Scotto was barred from filing a new action without first obtaining permission from the court to proceed without paying filing fees. She had not obtained that permission. The dismissal order and civil judgment were entered on June 15, 2020.

The order could not initially be mailed because Scotto had not provided an address with her complaint, and she had not agreed to electronic service. On August 24, 2020, she filed a 342-page document that was largely unintelligible and was entered as a motion for a stay. On September 29, 2020, she filed a notice of appeal and a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for more time to appeal.

Court’s Analysis

Under Rule 4(a)(1)(A), a notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after the order or judgment being appealed. Under Rule 4(a)(5), a motion for an extension must be filed no later than 30 days after the appeal deadline expires. The court described that 30-day period as a strict jurisdictional deadline. The party seeking an extension must also show excusable neglect or good cause.

The court calculated that Scotto’s notice of appeal was due on or about July 16, 2020, and that a timely extension motion was due by August 15, 2020. Because Scotto filed her extension motion too late, the court concluded that it could not grant the requested extension. The court separately denied the motion for a stay.

Disposition

The court denied Scotto’s motions for a stay and for an extension of the time to file a notice of appeal. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of that appeal. The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Scotto at the address listed on her notice of appeal and note service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.