Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 9, 2024

Lieber v. Spira

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-06932
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lieber v. Spira, Judge Swain granted Lieber 60 more days to amend his complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Shlomo Lieber, who received 60 additional days to file an amended complaint and was denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.

What happened

In Shlomo Lieber v. Aron Spira, et al., the court had previously dismissed Lieber’s complaint because it did not state claims within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court allowed him to file an amended complaint and later granted one extension of time.

Lieber asked for another extension because of medical issues. The court granted that request and gave him 60 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint. The court said no further extensions would be granted and that the complaint would be dismissed if he did not meet the deadline without showing a good reason.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Lieber permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The order did not decide the merits of any amended claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lieber v. Spira · No. 1:23-cv-06932
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 9, 2024

Background

Shlomo Lieber was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. In an earlier order, the court dismissed his complaint because it failed to state any claims within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court gave Lieber 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Lieber then requested additional time. The court granted his first request and directed him to file an amended complaint within 30 days of that order. Lieber later requested another extension because of “medical” issues and stated that he would submit medical documents. The court noted that he did not need to submit those documents.

Court’s ruling

The court granted Lieber’s request for another extension of time. It directed him to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the January 8, 2024 order. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted. It also stated that, if Lieber did not comply and could not show good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for the delay, the complaint would be dismissed.

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Lieber permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. This order addressed the filing deadline and appeal status; it did not decide whether any amended claim would succeed.

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.