Sterling v. Human Resources Administration
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-10192
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sterling v. Human Resources Administration, Judge Swain denied Sterling’s extension motion because her appeal notice was timely and denied public-funded appeal status.
Rose Sterling, who filed the action without a lawyer and sought extra time to file a notice of appeal.
What happened
In Sterling v. Human Resources Administration (Social Services), Rose Sterling, representing herself, asked for more time to file an appeal notice. The court had already dismissed her case on August 1, 2022, for lack of standing to bring claims for Bob Sterling and for failure to state a claim.
The court found that Sterling’s appeal notice was filed within the required 30-day period after judgment. Because the notice was timely, the court denied her request for an extension as unnecessary.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Sterling status allowing her to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Sterling v. Human Resources Administration · No. 1:21-cv-10192
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Rose Sterling filed the action without a lawyer. On August 1, 2022, the court dismissed the action for lack of standing to assert claims on behalf of Bob Sterling and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Judgment was entered that day.
On August 25, 2022, the court received Sterling’s notice of appeal and her motion for an extension of time to file that notice under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Ruling
A notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order or judgment being challenged. The court determined that Sterling had filed her notice within that period. It therefore denied her motion for an extension of time as unnecessary because the notice of appeal was timely.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, it denied Sterling permission to proceed with that appeal without paying court fees. The order did not revisit the August 1 dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.