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 a discovery extension, adjourned the conference, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Anthony Arriaga and the defendants, Anthony Annucci, Michael Capra, Elaine Velez, and Benny Thorpe, were affected by the revised discovery schedule and conference date. Arriaga was also affected by the denial of permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Arriaga v. Annucci, Anthony Arriaga asked for 60 more days to complete discovery while he worked with the City Bar Justice Center to seek free legal assistance. The defendants did not oppose the request and said they were discussing settlement and discovery with him.
The court granted the discovery-extension request and directed that the deadlines in a separate scheduling order would apply. It also moved the case-management conference from April 1, 2025, to June 18, 2025, and required defense counsel to report on settlement discussions by April 21, 2025. The court reminded Arriaga to send future court correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Arriaga permission to appeal without paying court fees. This order addressed scheduling and case administration, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Arriaga v. Annucci · No. 7:23-cv-01941
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 25, 2024
Background
Anthony Arriaga sent a letter to the judge’s chambers dated November 6, 2024, which was filed on November 20, 2024. He stated that he was working with the City Bar Justice Center to obtain free legal assistance in the case and requested a 60-day extension of the discovery deadlines, except for settlement-related matters. The defendants stated that they did not oppose the request and were contacting Arriaga to arrange a discussion about settlement and discovery.
Rulings
The court granted Arriaga’s request for an extension of the discovery deadlines. It stated that the deadlines in the Third Amended Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order would control, and that this scheduling order would be docketed separately.
The court adjourned the case-management conference from April 1, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. to June 18, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. It ordered defendants’ counsel to submit, on behalf of both sides, a letter by April 21, 2025, reporting on settlement discussions and stating whether the court could assist.
The court also reminded Arriaga to direct future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit at the listed White Plains address. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Effect of the Order
The discovery schedule was extended, the case-management conference was postponed, and the parties were required to provide a settlement-status update. The order did not state the new discovery deadlines itself; it referred to a separately docketed scheduling order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.