Canders v. MSN Online News
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-10090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Canders v. Capellan, Judge Swain denied Canders’s appeal-extension request and denied her requests to appeal without paying fees.
Tijuana L. Canders, who was representing herself, was denied an extension of time and was denied permission to pursue the appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Canders v. Capellan, the court addressed Tijuana L. Canders’s attempt to appeal an earlier order that dismissed her action but allowed her to file another complaint. Because she could still replead, the earlier order did not end the case and was not a final judgment.
The court treated Canders’s notice of appeal as an application for an immediate appeal and found that it was filed on time. It therefore denied her request for more time as unnecessary. The court also denied her requests to appeal without paying filing fees because it had already found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied all of the motions described in the order. The requests to appeal without paying fees were denied as moot, while the request for more time was denied as unnecessary.
The detailed version
- Canders v. MSN Online News · No. 1:22-cv-10090
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 24, 2023
Background
The court had previously dismissed this action but gave Plaintiff Tijuana L. Canders, who was representing herself, 30 days to replead copyright-infringement and trademark-infringement claims in a third amended complaint. Because the court allowed her to replead, it did not enter a judgment ending the action. On January 26, 2023, Canders filed a notice of appeal, a request for more time to file a notice of appeal, a request to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees, and an application to appeal without paying filing fees.
Appeal request
The court treated Canders’s notice of appeal as an attempt to seek an immediate appeal of the earlier order. It explained that the earlier order was not final because the case had not been terminated and that any appeal would therefore be an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the district-court case is fully over. The court found that Canders filed her notice on the same day the earlier order was entered, within the applicable 10-day period. It therefore denied her motion for an extension of time as unnecessary.
Requests to appeal without paying filing fees
The court noted that it had already certified in the earlier order that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Based on that certification, the court denied Canders’s request for permission to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal and denied her application to appeal without paying filing fees as moot.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for an extension of time as unnecessary. It also denied the motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal and the application to appeal without paying filing fees as moot. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.