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 deemed defendants’ dismissal motions unopposed after Valencia repeatedly failed to respond.
Frank E. Valencia, who did not respond to the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the defendants whose motions were deemed fully submitted and unopposed.
What happened
In Valencia v. Westchester County, Frank E. Valencia sued Westchester County, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, and several officials and medical personnel in a civil-rights case.
The defendants filed motions asking the court to dismiss the complaint. The court set and repeatedly extended deadlines for Valencia to respond, but he did not oppose the motions or request another extension.
The court deemed the motions fully submitted and unopposed; it did not state that it granted or denied the motions. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also denied Valencia permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Valencia v. Westchester County · No. 7:19-cv-01699
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
Frank E. Valencia, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action against Westchester County; Correct Care Solutions, LLC; medical director Raul Ulloa; medical administrator Alexis Gendell, M.D.; physician Joon Park, M.D.; Deputy Commissioner Leandro Diaz; and Commissioner Joseph K. Spano.
Correct Care Solutions, Gendell, Park, and Ulloa filed a motion to dismiss on July 1, 2019. Westchester County, Diaz, and Spano filed two motions to dismiss in August 2019. The court set a deadline for Valencia to file one response to the pending motions. Valencia did not respond or request more time.
The court later terminated and reinstated motions as the defendants clarified which claims they addressed. It ultimately instructed the County defendants to file one motion addressing all claims and extended Valencia’s response deadline several times. The court’s December 10, 2019 order warned that the motions would be considered fully submitted and unopposed if Valencia did not respond by December 23, 2019. Valencia still did not respond.
Ruling
The court deemed the motions to dismiss fully submitted and unopposed. The order did not grant or deny the motions and did not decide the underlying claims. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied Valencia permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The clerk was directed to mail Valencia a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.