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, Judge Swain granted another 30-day extension to amend the complaint and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Nadire Atas, who was representing herself, received another 30 days to file an amended complaint. The action could be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if she did not comply and could not show good cause. Any appeal from this order would not receive permission to proceed without paying the required 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 time to amend it.
The court granted Atas another 30 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint. It warned that the case would be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if she did not comply and could not show a good reason for the delay.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Atas v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-00853
- James Oetken
- July 22, 2022
Background
Nadire Atas brought this action without a lawyer. The court had dismissed her complaint in an order dated May 31, 2022, but gave her 30 days to file an amended complaint over which the federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction. On July 1, 2022, the court gave her another 30 days. On July 22, 2022, the court received her second request for more time.
Ruling
The court granted Atas’s request for another extension. It directed her to file an amended complaint within 30 days of July 22, 2022. The court stated that if she failed to comply and could not show good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for 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 proceed without paying the required fees for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed the filing deadline and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the merits of Atas’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.