Harding v. State of New York
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Harding v. State of New York: Judge Briccetti entered judgment for defendants after Harding did not amend her complaint or request more time.
Cheyenne C. Harding’s case was closed and judgment was entered for Trooper Timothy H. Finnegan, Investigator Timothy P. Gould, Investigator James Wollman, and other state police employees named as defendants.
What happened
In Harding v. State of New York, the court had previously dismissed Cheyenne C. Harding’s complaint under rules covering jurisdiction and failure to state a legally sufficient claim, while allowing her to file an amended complaint.
The court warned that Harding had to file the amended complaint by September 9, 2024, or judgment would be entered for the defendants and the case would be closed. Harding did not file an amended complaint or ask for more time, and the court received no indication that she had not received the earlier order.
The court treated the case as abandoned, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and ordered the case closed. Judge Briccetti also denied fee-free appeal status because he certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Harding v. State of New York · No. 7:22-cv-06285
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 26, 2024
Background
In an August 9, 2024 Opinion and Order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted. The court allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 9, 2024, following the instructions in that earlier order.
The court warned that failing to file an amended complaint by that deadline would result in judgment for the defendants and closure of the case. Chambers mailed the earlier Opinion and Order to the plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. By September 26, the plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of time. The court also had not received returned mail or other information indicating that the plaintiff had not received the earlier order.
Ruling
The court deemed the plaintiff to have abandoned the case. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in the defendants’ favor and close the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free appeal status. This order did not reconsider the earlier dismissal or address the underlying claims on their merits.
Effect
The case was closed, and judgment was entered for the defendants. The opinion states that a copy of the order would be mailed to the plaintiff at the address on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.