Murray v. Donald Trump Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Murray v. Donald Trump Inc., Judge Swain denied as moot a request to extend the appeal deadline and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Robert Lee Murray, whose motion to extend the appeal deadline was denied as moot and whose fee-waiver status for an appeal was denied; the defendants were not addressed on the merits in this order.
What happened
In Murray v. Donald Trump Inc., the court had previously dismissed Robert Lee Murray’s action because he had filed a duplicate case, and the Clerk entered judgment. Murray later filed an appeal and asked for more time to file the appeal notice.
The Second Circuit dismissed Murray’s appeal on August 28, 2023, stating that it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. Because the appeal was no longer pending, the district court ruled that the request for more time was no longer necessary.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the extension motion as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate it. She also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Donald Trump Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07924
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
The court stated that it had dismissed this action by an order dated September 16, 2022, because Robert Lee Murray had filed a duplicate action under another docket number and no useful purpose would be served by litigating both cases. The Clerk entered judgment the same day.
Murray then filed a notice of appeal and moved for an extension of time to file that notice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later dismissed the appeal because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
Ruling
Because the appeal was no longer pending, the district court found that Murray’s request for an extension of time was no longer necessary. The court denied the motion as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, identified as ECF 6.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied eligibility to appeal without paying the required fees. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on the underlying claims against the defendants.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on an unnecessary appeal-extension motion after the appeal had been dismissed and addressed appeal fee status without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.