Rodriguez v. Morton Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSE A. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-3775 (KMW) MORTON WILLIAMS; MORTON WILLIAMS, OWNER; FRANCISCO – LAST ORDER NAME UNKNOWN, SECURITY GUARD; UNKNOWN MANAGER ON DUTY ON 4-26- 25 AT 8PM, Defendants. KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. On September 8, 2025, the Court dismissed this action, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same day. On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and a notice of appeal. As set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as moot. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is denied as moot. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a notice of appeal in a civil case to be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Clerk of Court entered judgment on September 8, 2025, and Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal 28 days later, on October 6, 2025. Because the appeal is timely, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to appeal as moot. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion on the docket. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Kimba M. Wood KIMBA M. WOOD United States District Judge