Green v. Paramount
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Green v. Paramount, Judge Swain treated Green’s notice as a timely interlocutory-appeal application but denied her fee-waiver and counsel requests as moot.
Courtney Green, who was proceeding without a lawyer, was affected by the rulings on her proposed interlocutory appeal, fee-free appeal requests, and request for volunteer counsel.
What happened
In Green v. Paramount, the court had previously dismissed Courtney Green’s action as frivolous and asked her to explain why it should not restrict her from filing future civil actions without permission.
Green responded, then filed a notice of appeal, requests to appeal without paying fees, and an application for the court to request a volunteer lawyer. Because the court had not yet considered her response, it had not entered final judgment in the action.
The court treated Green’s notice as a timely application for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before final judgment. It denied her requests to proceed without paying appeal fees and for the court to request volunteer counsel as moot. Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order.
The detailed version
- Green v. Paramount · No. 1:23-cv-00535
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
In an earlier order entered February 23, 2023, the court dismissed Courtney Green’s action as frivolous. It also directed Green, who was proceeding without a lawyer, to submit a declaration explaining why the court should not bar her from filing future civil actions in that court without first obtaining permission.
Green filed her declaration on February 27, 2023. On March 2, 2023, she filed a notice of appeal, a motion for permission to proceed on appeal without paying fees, an application to appeal without paying fees, and an application asking the court to request volunteer legal counsel. Because the court had not yet considered Green’s declaration, it had not entered judgment terminating the action.
Interlocutory appeal
The court construed Green’s notice of appeal as an application to pursue an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal from an order that is not yet final. The court explained that the February 23 order was not final because it required Green to show cause regarding the proposed filing restriction. It therefore concluded that an appeal from that order would be interlocutory.
The court further concluded that Green’s March 2 filing was timely. The February 23 order was entered that same day, so the filing occurred seven days later, within the 10-day period discussed by the court for seeking authorization of an interlocutory appeal. The court regarded the notice as a timely application to file such an appeal; it did not authorize the interlocutory appeal in this order.
Other applications and ruling
The court denied Green’s motion for permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal and her application to appeal without paying fees as moot. It explained that its February 23 order had already certified that any appeal from that order would not be taken in good faith and had denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
The court also denied Green’s application asking it to request volunteer counsel as moot because the February 23 order had dismissed the action.
Disposition
The court regarded Green’s notice of appeal as a timely filed application to pursue an interlocutory appeal. It denied Green’s motion for permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, application to appeal without paying fees, and application for the court to request volunteer counsel as moot. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.