Williams v. Dudley
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-11018
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Dudley, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky extended Williams’s deadline to oppose dismissal one final time.
Isaac J. Williams received a final extension to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants received a deadline for any reply and for any motion to stay discovery.
What happened
In Williams v. Dudley, Isaac J. Williams had missed several deadlines to respond to the defendants’ request to dismiss his complaint. He said he and his brother had been ill and that he was having trouble finding legal assistance.
The court extended Williams’s response deadline for the last time, until January 27, 2025. If he did not respond by then, the court would treat the dismissal request as unopposed, although it would still review whether the complaint was legally sufficient. The court also set deadlines for a possible reply and for a possible request to pause discovery.
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky did not decide the defendants’ request to dismiss. She also kept the January 22, 2025 status conference on the schedule and explained that the court would read Williams’s self-represented complaint generously.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Dudley · No. 1:23-cv-11018
- John Cronan
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
Isaac J. Williams, who was representing himself, filed his complaint on December 20,
- The defendants moved to dismiss on August 26,
- The court set November 30, 2024, as Williams’s deadline to respond. After he missed that deadline, the court extended it to December 16,
- Williams missed the extended deadline as well.
At a December 20, 2024 status conference, Williams explained that he and his brother had been ill. The court then extended his deadline to January 21, 2025. On January 16, 2025, Williams requested another extension, explaining that he was having difficulty finding legal assistance.
Court’s action
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky extended Williams’s deadline one final time, until January 27, 2025. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court stated that if Williams did not file his opposition papers by January 27, it would treat the motion to dismiss as unopposed and fully submitted, meaning no additional briefs could be filed on that motion. The court explained that treating the motion as unopposed would not automatically require recommending dismissal. Even without a response, the court would assume the complaint’s factual allegations were true and would decide whether those allegations were legally sufficient. The court also said it would apply the more flexible reading generally given to complaints filed by people representing themselves.
If Williams filed a response by January 27, the defendants could file a reply by February 18. Regardless of whether Williams responded, any motion by the defendants to stay discovery was also due February 18. The January 22 status conference would proceed as scheduled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.