Manuel v. The State of New York
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-11820
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Manuel v. The State of New York, Judge Briccetti extended Elizabeth Manuel’s deadline to oppose dismissal and denied fee-free appeal status.
Elizabeth Manuel and the defendants, who were given new deadlines for briefing the motion to dismiss; any appeal from this order would not receive fee-free status.
What happened
In Manuel v. The State of New York, defendants moved to dismiss Elizabeth Manuel’s complaint on December 13, 2019. Her opposition was due December 30, 2019, but she had not responded or requested more time.
The court extended Manuel’s deadline to respond to February 6, 2020. Defendants’ reply, if any, was due February 13, 2020. If Manuel did not respond by February 6, the motion would be treated as ready for decision without her opposition.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Manuel v. The State of New York · No. 7:18-cv-11820
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 7, 2020
Background
On December 13, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss Elizabeth Manuel’s complaint. Her opposition was due December 30, 2019, under the cited court and federal rules. As of January 7, 2020, Manuel had not opposed the motion or requested an extension.
Order
The court extended Manuel’s time to oppose the motion until February 6, 2020. Any reply from the defendants was due February 13, 2020. The court stated that if Manuel did not respond by February 6, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed.
The Clerk was directed to mail Manuel a copy of the order at the address listed in the court docket.
Appeal-related ruling and effect
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed briefing deadlines and appeal-related status; it did not rule on the merits of the complaint or decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.