Brinson v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-07626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Briccetti denied Brinson v. Curtin’s motion challenging defendants’ summary-judgment motion, which remained pending.
Brinson’s motion was denied; defendants’ summary-judgment motion remained pending.
What happened
In Brinson v. Curtin, et al., Brinson, representing himself, asked the court to dismiss or deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment before the parties finished briefing it. He had also filed a response to that motion.
Judge Briccetti denied Brinson’s motion. The court said Brinson’s arguments about exhausting administrative remedies were already addressed in his response, and his argument about document headings did not matter.
Defendants’ summary-judgment motion remained pending, with their reply due January 29, 2020. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also denied Brinson permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brinson v. Doe · No. 7:18-cv-07626
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Brinson, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, filed a document titled “Motion to Dismiss Defendant(s) Summary Judgment Motion.” The motion asked the court to deny defendants’ summary-judgment motion before the parties completed briefing. The opinion states that Brinson had filed an opposition to defendants’ motion on January 15, 2020.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a party opposing summary judgment may do so by filing an opposition. Brinson’s motion raised two grounds for denying defendants’ motion. The first concerned whether Brinson had properly exhausted administrative remedies or was excused from that requirement; the court said that issue was already addressed in his opposition brief. The second concerned the placement of headings on an original document and a complaint to a superintendent; the court found that issue irrelevant.
Ruling and current status
The court denied Brinson’s motion. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not decided by this order and remained pending until defendants filed any reply, due January 29, 2020. The clerk was directed to terminate Brinson’s motion and mail him a copy of the order. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.