Owens v. Orange County Jail
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Owens v. Orange County, Judge Briccetti set deadlines for responding to Orange County’s dismissal motion and Kedar’s unanswered complaint.
DeSean J. Owens, Orange County, and Iman Malik Kedar. The order set response deadlines for Owens and Kedar, required a representation-status filing from the Orange County Attorney’s Office, and addressed fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In DeSean J. Owens v. Iman Malik Kedar and Orange County, Orange County moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, while Kedar had not responded or appeared. The court had not yet decided Orange County’s motion.
The court gave Owens until May 28, 2024, to oppose the motion and Orange County until June 11, 2024, to reply. It extended Kedar’s deadline to respond to May 28 and said Owens might then seek a default judgment if Kedar did not respond. The Orange County Attorney’s Office also had to state by May 10 whether it expected to represent Kedar.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also directed that copies of the order and a motion guide be mailed to Owens and Kedar. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Owens v. Orange County Jail · No. 7:22-cv-06487
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 26, 2024
Background
The court had previously confirmed that all defendants were served and required them to respond to the complaint by April 25, 2024. Orange County moved on April 25 to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. As of the order, Iman Malik Kedar had not responded to the complaint or otherwise appeared.
Court’s orders
The court ordered that:
- Owens’s opposition, if any, to Orange County’s motion to dismiss was due May 28,
- The court directed that Owens receive a copy of its guide for people representing themselves, which explains the procedure for responding to a motion to dismiss. - Orange County’s reply, if any, was due June 11,
- - The court extended Kedar’s deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint to May 28,
- If Kedar did not respond by then, Owens might be entitled to seek a default judgment. - By May 10, 2024, the Orange County Attorney’s Office had to file a letter stating whether it expected to represent Kedar.
The order set deadlines and addressed service and representation issues; it did not decide Orange County’s motion to dismiss or the merits of Owens’s claims.
Appeal-fee determination
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees for that appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.