Corwell v. Westchester County
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-03049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Corwell v. Westchester County, Judge Briccetti extended Corwell’s response deadline and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ziare Corwell and the defendants were affected: Corwell received additional time to oppose the motion to dismiss, and the defendants received a later reply deadline.
What happened
Corwell v. Westchester County concerns defendants’ motion to dismiss Ziare Corwell’s amended complaint. The defendants mailed Corwell the motion and supporting documents on December 2, 2019.
Corwell was representing themself and had not paid the filing fee. Corwell’s response was due December 19, 2019, but Corwell neither responded nor requested more time.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti extended the response deadline to January 17, 2020. The court said the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if Corwell did not respond by then, set January 24, 2020, for any reply, and denied fee-free status for an appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Corwell v. Westchester County · No. 7:19-cv-03049
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 27, 2019
Background
Defendants Westchester County, Assistant Warden LaFonda Spaulding, Officer Adames, Officer Beltran, Officer Cardillo, Officer Cozier, Sergeant Davis, Correctional Officer Melendez, and Correctional Officer Schilliro moved to dismiss Ziare Corwell’s amended complaint on December 2, 2019. The defendants mailed Corwell copies of the motion and supporting documents.
Corwell was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. Under the deadlines identified by the court, Corwell’s opposition was due December 19, 2019. The order states that Corwell had not opposed the motion or requested an extension.
Order
The court extended, on its own initiative, Corwell’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss until January 17, 2020. The court stated that if Corwell did not respond by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. Defendants’ reply, if any, was due January 24, 2020.
The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Corwell permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Corwell’s amended complaint. The Clerk was directed to mail Corwell a copy of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.