Jaime v. New York City Corrections
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jaime v. New York City Corrections, Judge Swain denied as moot Jaime’s extension request because his appeal notice was timely.
Luis Jaime is affected: his extension motion was denied as moot, permission to appeal without paying filing costs was denied, and his claims from the September 30, 2023 incident remain available in No. 24-CV-0266.
What happened
In Luis Jaime v. New York City Corrections, the court addressed two nearly identical complaints about Jaime’s fall at a Manhattan courthouse on September 30, 2023. The court had previously dismissed the complaint in this case while allowing Jaime to bring all claims from that incident in the other, still-pending case, docket number 24-CV-0266.
Jaime later filed a notice of appeal and asked for more time to appeal. The court concluded that the notice was filed within the required 30-day period, so no extension was needed. The court also said that all claims from the incident could still be raised in the pending case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the extension request as moot. She also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and again denied Jaime permission to appeal without paying the filing costs.
The detailed version
- Jaime v. New York City Corrections · No. 1:24-cv-00271
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 7, 2024
Background
The court received two substantially similar complaints from Luis Jaime concerning a fall at a courthouse in Manhattan on September 30, 2023. The complaints were opened as No. 24-CV-0266 and No. 24-CV-0271.
In an earlier order, the court dismissed the complaint in No. 24-CV-0271 while allowing Jaime to pursue all claims arising from the September 30 incident in No. 24-CV-0266, which remained pending. The court also stated that Jaime would not be charged the $350 filing fee for the closed action. The court later directed Jaime to submit a prisoner authorization form in the lower-numbered case, and the opinion says that form was received on February 7, 2024.
Appeal-Timing Motion
Jaime filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal order and moved for an extension of time to file that notice. Under Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a civil appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after judgment is entered.
The court determined that Jaime’s notice of appeal was timely, making an extension unnecessary. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for an extension of time to appeal as moot. The court reiterated that Jaime could raise all claims arising from the September 30 incident in No. 24-CV-0266.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Jaime’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as moot. 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 and again denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs. This order did not decide the underlying claims concerning Jaime’s fall.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.