Whether a pro se plaintiff can challenge an insurance underwriting decision through an appeal lacking an arguable basis in law or fact

No question identified. : Case 23-890, Document 71, 12/01/2023, 3595034, Paget of 1 S.D.N.Y.WP. 20-cv-4805 Roman, J United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Ata stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1 day of December, two thousand twenty-three. Present: Gerard E. Lynch, Michael H. Park, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges. Nicolyn Plummer, v. 23-890 New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association, Defendant-Appellee, New York State Division of Human Rights, Dane Austin, President, Defendants. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Appellant, pro se, moves for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reimbursement for incurred costs. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Appellee’s motion is DENIED because the appeal is timely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7); Arzuaga v. Quiros, 781 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 2015). It is further ORDERED that Appellant’s motion is denied and the appeal is DISMISSED because it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Pillay v. INS., 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court Case 23-890, Document 95, 04/12/2024, 3619592, Page‘ of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Ata Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 12 day of April, two thousand twenty-four, Present: Gerard E. Lynch, Michael H. Park, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges, Nicolyn Plummer, ORDER Docket No. 23-890 Plaintiff Appellant, v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association, Defendant Appellee, New York State Division of Human Rights, Dane Austin, President, Defendants. Appellant Nicolyn Plummer filed a motion for reconsideration and the panel that determined the motion has considered the request. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion is denied. For The Court: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court