Sheikh v. City of New York, Police Department et al

Filing 65

ORDER, Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 62) and for Extension of Time to Appeal (Dkt. 63) are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order by certified mail, return receipt requested, to pro se Plaintiff at the address listed in her Notice of Appeal. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 2/28/2018. (c/m to pro se as directed, certified mail receipt no. 7011 2000 0000 4074 6912) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-X
ROSE SHEIKH

Plaintiff,

ORDER

03-CV-6236(NGG)
(MDG)
05-CV-4718(NGG)
(MDG)

-againstCITY OF NEW YORK,POLICE
DEPARTMENT;CITY OF NEW YORK;NEW
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS;and DETECTIVE JOHN
BURGESS,individually and in his official

capacity.
Defendants.
-X

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS,United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Rose Sheikh was arrested on four occasions between 1999 and 2002. (Dec. 5,

2008, Mem.& Order(Dkt. 59, No.03-CV-6236)at 1-8.^) The first arrest led to her pleading
guilty to a charge of criminal impersonation (id. at 4), while the second and third led to her

indictment for grand larceny and forgery, charges that were dismissed following her fourth arrest
on a warrant issued in connection with that indictment(id. at 5-8). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the

above-captioned cases, which together asserted various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New
York law agaiast the City of New York,the New York City Police Department and Department
of Corrections, and Detective John Burgess, who arrested her on several occasions and provided

evidence against her. (Id at 2,4-6.) On December 5,2008,the court granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims. (Dec. 5, 2008, Mem.& Order.)

All citations refer to the docket in No. 03-CV-6236.

On February 26,2018,Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that order. (Notice of
Appeal(Dkt. 61).) Before the court are her motion for extension oftime to appeal (("Ext. Mot.")

(Dkt. 63))and her motion for leave to appeal in forma pauneris(("IFF Mot.")(Dkt. 62)). Both
motions are meritless.

Under Rule 4 ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party in a civil case typically
has 30 days to file her notice ofappeal after entry ofthe judgment or order from which she
appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The district court may briefly extend this deadline,
provided that the party seeking the extension both(1)"so moves no later than 30 days after" her
time for filing a notice of appeal has expired and(2)"shows excusable neglect or good cause."

Fed. R. App.P. 4(a)(5)(A); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). The court entered the
Memorandum and Order from which Plaintiff seeks to appeal in December 2008,so her notice of

appeal was due in early January 2009,
^Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), and she had until early
February 2009 to request an extension under Rule 4(a)(5). Her motion for extension oftime to
appeal, filed in February 2018,is grievously untimely and therefore denied.

Plaintiffs motion for leave to appeal in forma pauneris is similarly unavailing. Under
Rule 24(a)ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party seeking leave to appeal in forma
pauperis must provide an affidavit that, among other things,"states the issues that the party

intends to present on appeal." Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff has not done so (Cf. IFP
Mot.) Although Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal states that "[t]he case was one of Double

[Jeopardy]"(Notice of Appeal (spelling corrected)), this unswom statement does not satisfy Rule
24(a)because Plaintiff did not subscribe it to be "true under penalty ofpeijury." 28 U.S.C.

^ The court notes that Plaintiff erroneously submitted an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying

Fees or Costs(Short Form), AO 240,rather than the Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appe^ In
Forma Pauperis, Appellate Form 4, http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practiceprocedure/appellate-mles-forms.

§ 1746; Fed. R. App.P. 24(a)(1); Stair v. Calhoun. No. 12-CV-6121 (SJF),2015 WL 1966345,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 1,2015). Even if she had, no appeal would be taken in good faith on these

grounds, because Plaintiffnever raised a double-jeopardy argument before this court.

28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Plaintiffs Motions for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis(Dkt.62)and for Extension of

Time to Appeal(Dkt. 63)are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a

copy ofthis order by certified mail, retum receipt requested, to pro se Plaintiff at the address
listed in her Notice of Appeal.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

February^?. 2018

MCHOLAS G. GARAU\fIS

UJnited States District Judge