Atas v. The New York Times Company
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Chief Judge Swain granted Atas 30 days to amend her complaint after an earlier dismissal.
Nadire Atas, who must file an amended complaint within 30 days of the July 1, 2022 order or face possible dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; any appeal from this order would not receive permission to proceed without prepayment of filing fees.
What happened
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Nadire Atas, representing herself, asked for more time to file an amended complaint. The court had previously dismissed her complaint but allowed her 30 days to submit an amended version within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court granted Atas’s request for an extension. It directed her to file the amended complaint within 30 days of the order dated July 1, 2022.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that the action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Atas did not meet the deadline and could not show a good reason for the delay. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Atas v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-00853
- James Oetken
- July 1, 2022
Background
Nadire Atas brought the action without a lawyer. In an earlier order dated May 31, 2022, the court dismissed her complaint but gave her 30 days to file an amended complaint over which the court would have subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case. On June 30, 2022, the court received Atas’s letter requesting more time.
Ruling
The court granted Atas’s request for an extension. It directed her to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the July 1, 2022 order. The court stated that if she failed to comply and could not show good cause—an adequate reason excusing the failure—the action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.