Davis v. City of Mount Vernon
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:17-cv-08029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davis v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Briccetti returned Davis’s filing, extended her deadline, and denied further relief.
Sonia B. Davis and the defendants were affected: Davis’s noncompliant mailing was returned, her deadline to oppose the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was extended, and fee-free appeal status was denied.
What happened
Davis v. City of Mount Vernon involved Sonia B. Davis, who represented herself and had been allowed to proceed without paying a filing fee. The defendants had filed a motion asking for judgment without a trial, and Davis mailed the court a notice, letter, medical bills, prescription labels, and receipts.
The court said Davis’s mailing did not follow the federal and local rules for responding to that motion or the court’s instructions. It ordered that the mailing be returned and extended her deadline to respond to January 10, 2020. If she did not respond by then, the court would consider the defendants’ motion ready for decision.
Judge Briccetti denied any additional relief requested in the mailing, instructed Davis to send future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit rather than chambers, and denied her fee-free status for an appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion for judgment without a trial.
The detailed version
- Davis v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:17-cv-08029
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
At an August 29, 2019, case-management conference, the court gave Sonia B. Davis, who was representing herself and proceeding without paying a filing fee, a guide explaining how self-represented litigants should file motions. The guide instructed litigants to send motion papers to the Pro Se Intake Unit.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 29, 2019. Summary judgment is a request for judgment without a trial when the governing rules permit the court to decide the matter based on the record. The defendants’ proof of service stated that Davis was mailed the motion on October 30, 2019. Her opposition was due November 18, 2019, under the cited federal and local rules.
On December 10, 2019, the court received Davis’s mailing. It included a document dated November 21 and labeled “Notice of Motion,” requesting a judgment requiring the defendants to pay unspecified medical costs; an undated letter; medical bills; original prescription labels; and original receipts.
Court’s ruling
The court held that the mailing did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 56.1, or the instructions in the court’s guide. The court therefore stated that it would return the mailing to Davis.
Because Davis was representing herself, the court extended her deadline to oppose the defendants’ summary-judgment motion to January 10, 2020. The court stated that if she did not respond by that date, it would consider the motion fully submitted. To the extent the mailing sought any additional relief, the court denied that request.
The court also instructed Davis to address future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit and warned that it might disregard future submissions sent directly to chambers. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed Davis’s filing and deadlines; it did not resolve the defendants’ summary-judgment motion on its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.