Valencia v. Westchester County
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-01699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Valencia v. Westchester County, Judge Briccetti extended Valencia’s deadline to oppose dismissal motions and denied him fee-free appeal status.
Frank E. Valencia, who received additional time to oppose the pending motions, and the defendants, whose reply deadline was set by the order.
What happened
In Valencia v. Westchester County, several defendants asked the court to dismiss Frank E. Valencia’s complaint. Valencia did not file an opposition or ask for more time.
The court extended Valencia’s deadline to respond to the dismissal motions to December 23, 2019. It also set January 6, 2020, as the deadline for any defendant replies and stated that the motions would be treated as ready for decision if Valencia did not respond.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the dismissal motions in this order. He certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Valencia permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fees.
The detailed version
- Valencia v. Westchester County · No. 7:19-cv-01699
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
Frank E. Valencia sued Westchester County; Correct Care Solutions, LLC; several Westchester County Jail medical officials; and two correction commissioners. Correct Care Solutions, Alexis Gendell, Joon Park, and Raul Ulloa filed one motion to dismiss. Westchester County, Leandro Diaz, and Joseph Spano filed two motions to dismiss at different points.
The court had previously given Valencia deadlines to file one opposition to the pending motions. Valencia did not oppose the motions or request an extension. The court later changed which motions remained pending and directed the County defendants to file one motion addressing all claims. The County defendants filed that motion on October 24, 2019, but Valencia still had not responded by the date of this order.
Ruling
The court extended Valencia’s deadline to oppose the pending motions to dismiss until December 23, 2019. If Valencia did not respond by then, the motions would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. Any defendants’ replies were due January 6, 2020.
The order did not grant or deny the motions to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Valencia’s claims. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Valencia at the address listed on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.