Watts v. Brito
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Watts v. Brito, Judge Swain denied Watts’s extension motion as unnecessary and denied his motion to appeal without paying fees as moot.
Carlyn Watts, the self-represented plaintiff, because the order addressed the timing of his appeal and his request to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Watts v. Brito, Carlyn Watts, who represented himself, asked for more time to file a notice of appeal and asked to appeal without paying filing fees. The court had previously dismissed his action, and Watts also filed a notice of appeal.
The court found that Watts’s notice of appeal was filed before the deadline, so he did not need an extension. It also found that the court had already determined that an appeal from the earlier dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the extension request as unnecessary and denied the request to appeal without paying fees as moot. She also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so fee-free appeal status was denied for that appeal.
The detailed version
- Watts v. Brito · No. 1:23-cv-07836
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
The court had dismissed this action by an order and judgment dated January 30, 2024, and entered February 2, 2024. Carlyn Watts, who was representing himself, then filed a notice of appeal, a motion under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for more time to appeal, and a motion for permission to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees.
Extension of Time
A party generally has 30 days after entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal. The court determined that Watts’s deadline was March 4, 2024, because the ordinary deadline fell on a Sunday. Watts’s notice of appeal was received on February 12, 2024, before that deadline. The court therefore denied the Rule 4(a)(5) motion as unnecessary.
Permission to Appeal Without Paying Fees
The court had already certified in its January 30 order and judgment that any appeal from that decision would not be taken in good faith and had denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal. Because that issue had already been decided, the court denied Watts’s motion for permission to proceed without paying fees as moot.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for an extension of time as unnecessary and denied the motion for permission to proceed without paying fees as moot. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.