Triplett v. Reardon
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-01064
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Triplett v. Reardon, Judge Swain denied Triplett’s late appeal-extension and related requests.
Omar (Naftali) Triplett’s requests for more time to appeal, help from a lawyer, and appeal instructions were denied; the order did not rule on the underlying dispute with P. Reardon.
What happened
In Triplett v. Reardon, Omar (Naftali) Triplett asked for more time to appeal an October 27, 2023 order. He also asked for a lawyer and instructions explaining how to appeal.
The court applied the rule requiring a request for more time to be filed within 30 days after the appeal deadline expires. Triplett mailed his request on January 25, 2024, after that additional period had ended.
The court denied Triplett’s requests related to appealing the October 27 order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain enclosed general information about appealing detention-related decisions to the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Triplett v. Reardon · No. 1:20-cv-01064
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 5, 2024
Background
Omar (Naftali) Triplett, representing himself, moved for more time to file an appeal of the court’s October 27, 2023 order. He also requested a lawyer to help with the appeal and clear instructions on how to appeal.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 generally requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order being appealed. The district court may extend that deadline only when a party moves for an extension no later than 30 days after the original appeal period expires.
Triplett mailed his motion on January 25, 2024. The court determined that this was more than 30 days after the period allowed by Rule 4 had expired.
Ruling
The court denied Triplett’s requests related to an appeal of the October 27, 2023 order. The order also states that general information about appeals of detention-related decisions to the Second Circuit was enclosed. Judge Laura Taylor Swain stated that the order resolved docket entry number 87.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.