Frisco v. The City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-08915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frisco v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil denied a request to submit the dismissal motion and set final amendment or opposition deadlines.
Kenneth Frisco, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants—the City of New York and the Department of Correction.
What happened
In Kenneth Frisco v. The City of New York, the court had allowed the defendants to seek dismissal and allowed Frisco, who was proceeding without a lawyer, to amend his complaint. Frisco filed neither an amended complaint by the first deadline nor an opposition to the dismissal motion.
The court denied the request to treat the dismissal motion as ready for decision, citing the special leniency given to people without lawyers. It ordered any attorney assisting Frisco to file a notice by July 12, 2024, and required Frisco to file either an amended complaint or an opposition to the pending motion by July 26, 2024.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failing to meet the July 26 deadline could result in dismissal of the case, with prejudice, for failing to follow court orders and pursue the case. The court did not decide the pending motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Frisco v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08915
- Vyskocil
- June 18, 2024
Background
In an earlier order, the court granted the defendant's request for permission to file a motion to dismiss Kenneth Frisco's complaint. Frisco had filed the complaint without a lawyer. The court also allowed him to amend the complaint and warned that failing to amend by March 26, 2024, would waive that opportunity. The court separately set May 7, 2024, as the deadline for Frisco to oppose the motion to dismiss.
Frisco did not file an amended complaint or an opposition. The defendant timely filed the motion and required notices. The defendant then asked the court to treat the motion as fully submitted, meaning ready for the court to decide. Frisco later wrote to the court asking about the case's status, stating that he had found someone to assist him, and requesting more time and permission to amend.
Ruling
The court denied the defendant's request to treat the motion to dismiss as fully submitted. It explained that people representing themselves without lawyers must receive special leniency. The court did not decide whether the complaint should be dismissed.
Deadlines and warning
The court ordered that any attorney representing Frisco must file a notice of appearance by July 12, 2024. If no attorney appeared, Frisco still had to comply with the order while representing himself.
The court set July 26, 2024, as the deadline for Frisco to file an amended complaint, with or without assistance from counsel. It described this as his final opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues identified in the motion to dismiss. If Frisco chose not to amend, he had to file an opposition to the pending motion by the same date. Filing an amended complaint would make the pending motion to dismiss moot. The court warned that failure to file either document could result in dismissal of the action, with prejudice, for failure to follow court orders and prosecute the case. Any request for more time had to be filed by letter at least 48 hours before the applicable deadline.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.