Vasquez v. Friia
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:15-cv-08853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vasquez v. Meyers, Judge Briccetti denied Vasquez’s late motion to extend the deadline for appealing and denied fee-free appeal status.
Kim Vasquez could not obtain more time to appeal the 2018 dismissal and was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees; the defendants were identified as Brandon Meyers, Neil O’Donnell, and the Town of Orangetown.
What happened
In Kim Vasquez v. Brandon Meyers, Neil O’Donnell, and the Town of Orangetown, Kim Vasquez, representing himself, asked for more time to appeal the dismissal of his case.
The court had dismissed the case in 2018 because Vasquez did not pursue it and did not follow court orders. Vasquez said health problems caused him to miss the appeal deadline, but he filed his request nearly three years late. The defendants also would have been harmed by having to respond to such a late appeal.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the request for an extension because it was filed too late and did not meet the requirements for reopening the appeal period. The court also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Vasquez permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. Friia · No. 7:15-cv-08853
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
Kim Vasquez, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the court’s March 5, 2018, order dismissing the case. The opinion’s caption identifies the defendants as Brandon Meyers, Neil O’Donnell, and the Town of Orangetown.
The March 5, 2018, order dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Vasquez later stated that he first learned of the dismissal on April 26, 2018, and asked the court to reopen the case. The court denied that request on May 1, 2018, and mailed the order to the multiple addresses Vasquez had provided.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the deadline to appeal the March 5 order expired no later than April 9, 2018, and the deadline to appeal the May 1 order expired no later than June 4, 2018. Vasquez attributed his delay to medical complications and said he had only recently received appeal papers.
The court held that the motion was untimely under Rule 4(a)(5) because Vasquez filed it nearly three years after the appeal deadline expired. The court also declined to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), explaining that Vasquez had clearly received notice of the March 5 dismissal by April 26, 2018; the motion was filed more than 180 days after both orders and more than 14 days after Vasquez received notice of them; and the defendants would be clearly prejudiced by having to respond to an appeal nearly three years after dismissal.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The court also 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 appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.