Atas v. The New York Times Company et al

Filing 16

ORDER: The Court denies Plaintiff's request for another 45 days to file an amended complaint. (ECF 15.) Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, in compliance with the Court's May 31, 2022, order, within 30 days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by that date, a civil judgment will be entered in this action. 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 t herefore 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. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/15/2022) (sac)

Download PDF
Case 1:22-cv-00853-LTS Document 16 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NADIRE ATAS, Plaintiff, -againstTHE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, et al., 22-CV-0853 (LTS) ORDER Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. By order dated May 31, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, but granted her 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint of which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.1 Plaintiff has since requested three extensions of time, which the Court has granted. On August 17, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 45 days to submit her amended complaint and stated that no further extensions would be granted. (ECF 14.) On September 14, 2022, however, the Court received a fourth request from Plaintiff for another 45-day extension of time to file her amended complaint. (ECF 15.) Plaintiff has had more than three months to comply with the Court’s May 31, 2022, order. Plaintiff only need to submit an amended complaint providing factual allegations concerning her claims and the basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction of this action; it is unnecessary to conduct any legal research or provide any legal argument. The Court warned Plaintiff in the August 17, 2022, order, that no further extensions would be granted, and she has had sufficient time to comply with the Court’s May 31, 2022, order. Her request for another 45- 1 In the May 31, 2022, order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to submit an amended complaint to allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction of this action, and to provide a short and plain statement of her claims and allege facts showing why each defendant named in the amended complaint is liable to her for the alleged libel. (ECF 8, at 8.) Case 1:22-cv-00853-LTS Document 16 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 2 days’ extension of time is therefore denied. Because Plaintiff alleges that she is having health issues, the Court grants her another 30-days’ leave to submit her amended complaint. This is the last extension of time that the Court will grant. If Plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order, a civil judgment will be entered in this action. CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for another 45 days to file an amended complaint. (ECF 15.) Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, in compliance with the Court’s May 31, 2022, order, within 30 days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by that date, a civil judgment will be entered in this action. 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: September 15, 2022 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?