Tanner v. MTA Long Island Railroad

Background

The court had dismissed Walter Tanner’s pro se action by an order and judgment entered in February 2023. It dismissed Tanner’s federal-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court declined to consider any state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction.

Tanner later filed a letter that the court treated as both a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court denied those motions in an order entered April 11, 2023.

Motions Before the Court

On April 12, 2023, Tanner filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. He also filed a notice of appeal, a motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying court fees), and an application to appeal in forma pauperis.

Appeal deadline

Ordinarily, a party has 30 days after entry of a judgment to file a notice of appeal. A timely Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion filed within the applicable period changes when that appeal period begins. Because the court had treated Tanner’s earlier letter as timely motions under both rules, the 30-day appeal period began when the court’s April 10 order denying those motions was entered on April 11. Tanner therefore had until May 11, 2023, to file a timely notice of appeal. His notice, filed April 12, was timely.

The court therefore denied Tanner’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion for an extension of time as unnecessary.

Fee-free appeal requests

The court had already certified in its February 2023 order and judgment that any appeal from that decision would not be taken in good faith. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a trial court may deny permission to appeal without fees when it makes that certification. Based on its earlier certification, the court denied Tanner’s motion for permission to proceed without fees on appeal and his application to appeal without fees as moot.

Disposition

The court denied the Rule 4(a)(5) motion as unnecessary. It also denied the motion for permission to proceed without fees on appeal and the application for permission to appeal without fees as moot. The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for this order.