SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes returned to the news last week as he made a motion to extend time for his notice of appeal in his previously dismissed federal civil lawsuit against members of the police force in the city of Berwyn, Illinois.
This lawsuit was dismissed at the start of the year after the judge granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgement. Reyes was suing on the grounds of false arrest, conspiracy and malicious prosecution.
It was partially revived in February when Reyes violated an agreement in the case and aired the depositions of the defendants on his channel. He had been previously granted the right to film the depositions of the defendants in the case with the caveat that he never publishes those videos to his channel.
In his response to the defendants filing an emergency motion to take down the video, Reyes blamed his lawyer, Gregory E. Kulis, for the mix up and refused to take responsibility for his actions. Kulis then asked to be removed from the case, with Reyes
Reyes’ new motion claims that his previously filed Notice of Appeal was timely filed but misfiled due to an administrative error on behalf of the Clerk’s office. Reyes claimed that his representative filed a Notice of Appeal on February 12, 2025, within the 30-Day window for appeal (as the case was dismissed on January 14, 2025), and it somehow was filed as an amended complaint.
The YouTuber confirmed the error on February 19, 2025, and the Notice of Appeal was filed on February 19, 2025, correcting the record. Because the notice was filed outside of the 30-day period for the appeal, Reyes was ordered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to explain why they’d have jurisdiction over the appeal.
Reyes is now seeking an extension of time on the original appeal because of the misfiling so the Court of Appeals will be able to take his case. He’s claiming that since it was an inadvertent error, and he should not be held accountable for the error and is asking the judge in his original case to grant the extension to fix things.
He filed a response to the Court of Appeals on March 24, 2025, to explain the error. In the current filing, he included copies of the response to the court of appeals and his receipt date February 12, 2025, for the Appeal/Docketing fee.
We noted in our coverage how strange the listing for amended complaint was when it was filed back in February and noted that he had filed outside of the 30 days when his appeal was posted. This filing attempts to explain those filings.
There has been no response from the court as of Sunday morning.
