Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-00236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman, Judge Swain granted an incarcerated plaintiff’s extension to amend his complaint but denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Kouriockein Vann, who received more time to amend his complaint but was denied permission to appeal without prepaying appeal fees.
What happened
Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman concerns Kouriockein Vann, who is incarcerated and representing himself. After the court ordered him to file an amended complaint, he asked for more time.
The court granted Vann’s request and gave him 60 days from the order’s date to file the amended complaint. It warned that, without a timely filing or good cause for missing the deadline, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Vann permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The order did not decide the merits of Vann’s claims.
The detailed version
- Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman · No. 7:23-cv-00236
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 24, 2023
Background
Kouriockein Vann, who is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. On March 6, 2023, the court directed Vann to file an amended complaint within 60 days. On April 21, 2023, Vann sent the court a letter asking for an extension.
Ruling
The court granted Vann’s request for an extension. It directed him to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the April 24, 2023, order. The court warned that if Vann did not meet that deadline and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Vann permission to appeal without prepaying the appeal fees. The order did not resolve whether Vann’s underlying claims were legally valid.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.