UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUANA PEREZ, Plaintiff, 23-CV-3330 (LTS) -against- ORDER EMPIRE CITY CASINO; LAGUARDIA AIRPORT; BURLINGSTON STORES, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. On May 16, 2023, the Court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but granted Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead her claims in an amended complaint. (ECF 7.) Because Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, on July 5, 2023, the Clerk of Court entered judgment dismissing the action. (ECF 8.) On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion in which she sought to reopen this action, along with a declaration in support of her motion. (ECF 9, 10.) By order dated September 24, 2024, the Court construed her submissions as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and denied the motion. (ECF 11.) On August 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (ECF 15) and a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (ECF 14). By order dated August 8, 2025, the Court denied that motion as untimely. (ECF 17.) Despite the Court’s denial of that motion, on September 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed another motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (ECF 18.) The Court denies Plaintiff’s recent motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as untimely for the same reasons it denied her previous motion for the same relief. (See ECF 17, at 1-2.) This action is closed. The Court will not consider any further motions for an extension to file a notice of appeal. The Court warns Plaintiff that if she files another such motion, the Court will issue an order directing her to show cause why the Court should not bar her from filing documents in this action without first receiving permission to file from the court. See

. CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (ECF 18) as untimely, and directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. This action is closed. The Court will not consider any further motions for an extension to file a notice of appeal. The Court warns Plaintiff that if she files another such motion, the Court will issue an order directing her to show cause why the Court should not bar her from filing documents in this action without first receiving permission to file from the court. See

. The Court certifies under

(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,

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 12, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge