Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-01585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 26
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Judge Liman directed the parties to explain how to handle Duane Berry’s correspondence and appeal notices.
Lori Gardner-Alfred, Jeanette Diaz, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Duane Berry’s correspondence and notices of appeal were affected by the court’s directive.
What happened
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the court addressed another letter from Duane Berry that was attached to the order. The case caption lists Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz as plaintiffs and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as defendant.
Berry’s attached letter disputed an earlier order’s treatment of a notice of appeal and asked the district court to send that notice to the Court of Appeals. The order did not decide whether the notice was valid or whether it should be transmitted.
The parties were directed to tell the court by June 16, 2023, how they wanted the court to handle correspondence and notices of appeal from Berry. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on June 9, 2023.
The detailed version
- Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01585
- Lewis Liman
- June 9, 2023
Background
The court received another letter from Duane Berry. The attached letter asserted that a notice of appeal filed on May 12, 2023, was not fraudulent, contrary to the court’s May 15, 2023 order. It stated that Berry had filed the notice as a purported federal trustee and asked the district court to transmit the notice of appeal.
The opinion text also includes the May 15, 2023 order, which said that a notice of appeal appeared to have been signed by Daphne Ha, that Ha told the Appeals Coordinator she had not filed it, and that the notice was fraudulent. That earlier order directed that the notice be placed on the case record but rejected it and ordered that it not be transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The June 9 order does not resolve the dispute about the notice’s validity.
Court’s Action
The court directed the parties to inform it by June 16, 2023, how they would like the court to handle correspondence and notices of appeal from Berry. The order made no ruling on the underlying claims, the validity of the notice of appeal, or whether the notice should be transmitted. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order.
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.