Andrews v. Johnson
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-08310
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Andrews v. Johnson, Judge Swain treated Carl Andrews’s extension motion as a timely appeal notice, denied the extension as moot, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Carl Andrews’s filing will be processed as a notice of appeal, but he was denied permission to pursue the appeal without paying court fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to process the notice and mail Andrews the order.
What happened
In Andrews v. Johnson, Carl Andrews, who was representing himself, asked for more time to appeal after the court dismissed his complaint and entered judgment on January 18, 2022. He filed an extension request but did not file a separate appeal notice.
The court decided that Andrews had 60 days to appeal because he sued several federal officers or employees. Although his filing was labeled an extension request and did not name the appeals court, it clearly showed that he intended to appeal the January 18 judgment. The court treated the filing as a timely appeal notice.
Judge Swain directed the Clerk of Court to process the appeal notice and denied Andrews’s request for an extension as moot. The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Andrews permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Johnson · No. 1:21-cv-08310
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 8, 2022
Background
Carl Andrews, who was detained at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility and represented himself, filed the action against James Johnson and the other named defendants. On January 18, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment. On February 15, 2022, Andrews filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) asking for more time to file a notice of appeal. He had not filed a separate notice of appeal, and his time to appeal had not expired.
Appeal deadline
The court explained that a civil appeal generally must be noticed within 30 days after judgment. When a party is a current or former federal officer or employee sued in an official capacity, or sued individually for conduct connected with duties performed for the United States, the deadline is 60 days. Because Andrews sued several federal officers or employees, the court determined that his deadline was March 21, 2022.
Treatment of the motion as a notice of appeal
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 requires a notice of appeal to identify the appealing party, identify the judgment or order being challenged, and name the court to which the appeal is taken. Courts must apply those requirements liberally, especially for filings by people representing themselves who are incarcerated or lack funds. A filing can function as a notice of appeal even if it has a different title, as long as it clearly shows the party’s intent to seek appellate review and gives the other parties and courts adequate notice.
Andrews’s motion did not have the title “notice of appeal” and did not identify the appellate court. However, it stated his intent to appeal the January 18 order and judgment. The court found that the only possible appellate forum was the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It therefore held that the motion satisfied Rule 3 and construed it as a timely notice of appeal.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to process Andrews’s filing as a notice of appeal. It denied Andrews’s motion for an extension of time as moot because the filing was treated as a timely notice of appeal and no extension was necessary. 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 proceed without paying court fees for the appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Andrews a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.