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 submitted the motions for decision without ruling on their merits.
Sonia B. Davis and the named defendants were affected by the scheduling and submission rulings; the court did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Davis v. City of Mount Vernon, Sonia B. Davis, representing herself and without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights case against the City of Mount Vernon, the Mount Vernon Police Department, and several police officers.
Defendants moved for summary judgment. Davis did not timely file another response, but the court extended her deadline and treated her later filing as an additional response. The court also treated two of Davis’s filings as motions.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and Davis’s motions fully submitted for later decision. The order did not decide those motions, and it denied fee-free status for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Davis v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:17-cv-08029
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Sonia B. Davis, proceeding pro se (without a lawyer) and in forma pauperis (without paying filing fees), brought a civil-rights action against the City of Mount Vernon, the Mount Vernon Police Department, Police Officers Dervin Chery, Eduardo Baerga, Timothy W. Briley, Darius M. Mitchell, Robert F. Kressman, Sergeant Michael Marcuculli, and Police Officers John and Jane Doe.
Motions and filings
Davis submitted an undated letter with supporting evidence, a filing titled “Notice of Motion” asking the court to address her injuries and attaching medical records, and another letter concerning the circumstances of her alleged injuries. The court previously construed those filings as opposing an expected defense motion for summary judgment, which is a motion asking the court to rule because the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial.
The defendants later filed their summary-judgment motion and served it on Davis by mail. Her additional response was due November 18, 2019. She did not timely file another response or request more time. Because Davis was representing herself, the court extended her deadline to January 10, 2020. Davis then filed another document titled “Notice of Motion,” asking for judgment against the defendants concerning certain medical costs. The court treated that filing as both a motion and an additional response to the defendants’ motion.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Davis’s motions fully submitted. The order did not grant or deny any of those motions and did not decide the underlying claims. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Davis a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.