Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 27, 2019

Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:18-cv-06754
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections, Judge Briccetti entered judgment for defendants after Lainez failed to amend or request more time.

Who this affects

The judgment ended Lainez’s case against the named defendants and denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fees.

What happened

In Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections, the judgment states that the court had already dismissed all of Lainez’s claims. Lainez did not file a second amended complaint or ask for more time to do so.

The court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor and closed the case. It also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.

Judge Briccetti is identified in the case information as the judge. The judgment itself is dated November 27, 2019, and was entered by the court clerk.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections · No. 7:18-cv-06754
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Nov. 27, 2019

Background

The judgment states that, under the court’s November 25, 2019 order, all of the plaintiff’s claims had already been dismissed. The plaintiff had not filed a second amended complaint and had not requested an extension of time to file one.

The judgment’s caption lists the defendants as Amy Roycroft, Ashley Harris-Baker, Jeanette Barret-Wilson, Julio Martinez, and Stephanie O’Sullivan.

Ruling

The court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor and closed the case. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the November 25 order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fees.

Limits of the Opinion

This judgment does not explain the claims, the reasons for the earlier dismissal, or the terms of the November 25 order. It addresses the plaintiff’s failure to file a second amended complaint or seek more time and then enters judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.