Scannapieco v. New York City Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a COA is not required to appeal from the denial of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion because it “sa[ys] nothing about the merits of [the] underlying [habeas petition]”
• holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding a lack of good cause in part because the district court required an “affidavit or verified statement attesting to [the alleged] facts”
• noting that “neither the district court nor the government dispute” that a prisoner’s confinement in a solitary housing unit where he was denied access to stamps, envelopes, and the law library could constitute good cause to excuse a late notice of appeal
• holding COA was not required for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitioner to appeal denial of extension of time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) because the order “plainly did not ‘dispose of the merits’” (quoting Harbison, 556 U.S. at 183)
• “The good cause standard applies in situations where there is no fault--excusable or otherwise.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).