Whether a pro se litigant's request for an extension of time to file an appeal should be granted when the deadline is approaching and the litigant seeks to prepare a comprehensive filing

No question identified. : 3. Plaintiff telephoned SCOTUS latter November and December, 2025 several times to request application for an appeal, but to no avail. About December 23, 2025, plaintiff telephoned SCOTUS and a live person from SCOTUS Clerk's office advised plaintiff to visit SCOTUS online and to request application materials for the appeal process; 4. Application papers for appeal were postmarked from SCOTUS Deecember 23, 2025 and received by plaintiff December 27, 2025. The 90 day deadline for filing an appeal from the November 17, 2025 Order of the USCA 2nd Circuit is fastly approaching, and because of time limit looming, plaintiff is respectfully requesting Her Honor for an extension of time to file plaintiff's appeal, which from November 17, 2025 expires about February 15, 2026. This request is pursuant to plaintiff's pro se status and wanting to file a properly formatted and comprehensive appeal and to allow 'freed up' (from time consumed) to perfect the appeal. WHEREFORE plaintiff respectfully request the Court grant the relief requested and for any other such relief the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Dated: January 2, 2026 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York — ; a) N Daria Escoffier | l ~~523 Hudson Street #4FS New York, NY 10014 (212) 675-3836 Case: 24-1790, 09/24/2025, DktEntry: 35.1, Page 1 of 1 S.D.N.Y.-N.Y.C. 22-cv-6588 Subramanian, J. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a 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 24" day of September, two thousand twenty-five. Present: Richard C. Wesley, Joseph F. Bianco, Beth Robinson, Circuit Judges. Dana Escoffier, v. 24-1790 Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Appellant, pro se, moves for appointment of counsel. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court Case: 24-1790, 11/17/2025, DktEntry: 41.1, Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a 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 17" day of November, two thousand twenty-five. Dana Escoffier, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ORDER Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Docket No: 24-1790 Defendant Appellee. Appellant Dana Escoffier filed a motion for panel reconsideration, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration en banc. The panel that determined the appeal has considered the request for reconsideration, and the active members of the Court have considered the request for reconsideration en banc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk