Arriaga v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-01941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Arriaga v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti granted more discovery time but denied additional relief over alleged prison law-library problems.
Anthony Arriaga, the defendants, and the schedule for discovery and case management in this case.
What happened
In Arriaga v. Annucci, Anthony Arriaga told the court that he had changed his address, needed 60 more days for discovery, and was having problems accessing the law library, printing materials, and making copies at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The defendants did not oppose more time and said they would resend discovery responses.
The court granted the request for an extension and extended the discovery deadlines under a separately docketed scheduling order. It also moved the case management conference to April 1, 2025, and required defense counsel to report by December 2, 2024, on settlement discussions and whether the court could help.
Judge Briccetti denied any relief beyond the extension for the alleged law-library violation. The court also denied pauper status for an appeal, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Arriaga v. Annucci · No. 7:23-cv-01941
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 10, 2024
Background
Anthony Arriaga notified the court that he had changed his address and requested a 60-day extension of the discovery deadlines. He also reported what he described as a “Bounds violation,” referring to claimed difficulty accessing the law library, printing materials, and making copies at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The defendants did not object to the extension and said they would re-mail discovery responses to Arriaga at his new address.
Court’s Rulings
The court granted Arriaga’s request for an extension of time. It extended discovery deadlines as provided in the Second Amended Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, which the court said would be docketed separately. The court adjourned the case management conference to April 1, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., and ordered defense counsel to submit a letter by December 2, 2024, on behalf of both parties about the status of settlement discussions and whether the court could assist.
The court understood Arriaga’s reference to be to Bounds v. Smith, which concerns adequate prison law libraries or legal assistance. To the extent Arriaga requested relief beyond the extension of time for that alleged violation, the court denied the request. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied pauper status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.