Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 23, 2023

Antrobus v. New York City

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-08822
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Antrobus v. New York City, Judge Swain denied an unnecessary deadline-extension request and denied fee-free appeal status for this order.

Who this affects

Andre Antrobus, whose request for more time to file a notice of appeal was denied as unnecessary and whose fee-free status was denied for an appeal from this order.

What happened

In Antrobus v. New York City, Andre Antrobus, who was representing himself, asked for more time to file an appeal. The court had previously dismissed his case without prejudice after he failed to provide a required signature page for his complaint.

The court said Antrobus’s notice of appeal was filed within the required 30-day period after judgment. It therefore denied his request for more time as unnecessary.

Judge Swain also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Antrobus permission to proceed without paying the required fees for such an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Antrobus v. New York City · No. 1:22-cv-08822
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 23, 2023

Background

Andre Antrobus filed this action without a lawyer. On April 25, 2023, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because he had not submitted a signature page for his complaint as the court had directed. The dismissal order and judgment were entered the next day.

On May 19, 2023, the court received Antrobus’s notice of appeal and his motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for an extension of time to file that notice. The court’s footnote states that it transmitted the notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 22, 2023.

Ruling

A party generally has 30 days after entry of the order or judgment being challenged to file a notice of appeal. The court determined that Antrobus had filed his notice within that period. It therefore denied his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It consequently denied 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.