Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 14, 2022

Jones v. NYC-STATE and DOC

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-04675
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jones v. NYC-STATE and DOC, Judge Swain denied Jones’s extension request as unnecessary because his appeal notice was timely and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Tarnell Leon Jones, whose request for more time to appeal was denied as unnecessary and whose fee-free status for an appeal from this order was denied.

What happened

In Jones v. NYC-STATE and DOC, Tarnell Leon Jones, who was representing himself, asked for more time to file an appeal. The court had previously dismissed his case as frivolous and entered judgment.

The court denied the request for more time as unnecessary because Jones filed his appeal notice within 30 days after judgment. The court had already sent that notice to the appeals court.

Judge Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jones v. NYC-STATE and DOC · No. 1:22-cv-04675
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 14, 2022

Background

Tarnell Leon Jones filed the action without a lawyer. On September 26, 2022, the court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and entered judgment the next day. On October 12, 2022, the court received Jones’s notice of appeal and his motion under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure seeking more time to file the notice. The court transmitted the notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 13, 2022.

Ruling

The court denied Jones’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary. A party generally has 30 days after entry of the order or judgment being challenged to file a notice of appeal. The court concluded that Jones’s notice was timely because he filed it within 30 days after entry of the September 26, 2022, judgment.

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. It therefore denied Jones permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.