Carrasco v. Griffin
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:17-cv-09643
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carrasco v. Griffin, Judge Briccetti extended Carrasco’s deadline to oppose defendants’ dismissal motion.
Jose Carrasco, who received additional time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss; defendants Anthony Annucci and Thomas Griffin, whose reply deadline was set; and any attempted appeal from this order, for which permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was denied.
What happened
In Carrasco v. Griffin, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 6, 2019. Carrasco’s response was due December 23, 2019, but he had not filed one or requested more time.
The court extended Carrasco’s response deadline to February 3, 2020. Defendants’ reply, if any, was due February 10, 2020. The court stated that the dismissal motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if Carrasco did not respond by February 3.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued the order on January 3, 2020. The court also directed the clerk to mail Carrasco a copy and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Carrasco v. Griffin · No. 7:17-cv-09643
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 3, 2020
Background
Defendants Anthony Annucci, identified in the caption as Acting Commissioner, and Thomas Griffin, identified as Superintendent, moved to dismiss Jose Carrasco’s complaint on December 6, 2019. Under the deadlines cited by the court, Carrasco’s opposition was due December 23, 2019. The order states that Carrasco had neither opposed the motion nor requested an extension.
Order
The court extended Carrasco’s deadline to oppose the dismissal motion to February 3, 2020. Any reply from defendants was due February 10, 2020. The court stated that if Carrasco did not respond by February 3, the motion would be deemed fully submitted and unopposed. The clerk was directed to mail Carrasco a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.
Appeal-Filing Determination
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. This order did not decide the underlying dismissal motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.