Ruggiero v. Orange County Jail
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-03632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ruggiero v. Orange County Jail, Judge Briccetti denied requests tied to missed responses and extended Ruggiero’s deadline to oppose dismissal motions.
Francis Henry Ruggiero and the defendants in his constitutional-rights lawsuit were affected by the new briefing deadlines and the denial of the defendants’ requests based on his missed response.
What happened
Ruggiero v. Orange County Jail concerns Francis Henry Ruggiero’s constitutional-rights lawsuit against Orange County, county officials, Wellpath, and medical providers. Ruggiero was proceeding without a lawyer and had filed an amended complaint.
The defendants filed two motions asking the court to dismiss the case. After receiving one extension, Ruggiero still did not file an opposition or request more time. The defendants then asked the court to treat their motions as unopposed or grant one motion entirely.
Judge Briccetti denied the CCS Defendants’ request without prejudice, denied the County Defendants’ request, and extended Ruggiero’s deadline to respond to February 24, 2020. The court also denied fee-free appeal status for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Ruggiero v. Orange County Jail · No. 7:19-cv-03632
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 23, 2020
Background
Francis Henry Ruggiero filed a lawsuit alleging that County of Orange; Sheriff Carl E. Dubois; Sergeant K. Lyons; Captain James Potter; Wellpath, formerly Correct Care Solutions; Dr. Salwa Khouri; and Ibellis Diaz violated his constitutional rights. Ruggiero was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He filed an amended complaint dated October 16, 2019.
On December 4, 2019, the CCS Defendants—Correct Care Solutions, Dr. Salwa Khouri, and Ibellis Diaz—filed one motion to dismiss. The County Defendants—County of Orange, Sheriff Carl E. Dubois, Sergeant K. Lyons, and Captain James Potter—filed another. Ruggiero’s opposition was initially due December 23, 2019, but the court extended the deadline to January 16, 2020.
Missed response and requests
Ruggiero did not file an opposition by January 16 and did not request another extension. The CCS Defendants asked that their motion be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. The County Defendants asked that their motion be granted entirely because Ruggiero had not responded.
Court’s ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the following:
- The CCS Defendants’ request to have their motion treated as fully submitted and unopposed was denied without prejudice. - The County Defendants’ request to have their motion granted entirely because Ruggiero failed to respond was denied. - The court extended Ruggiero’s deadline to oppose the motions to February 24, 2020. Any defendants’ replies were due March 2, 2020. - The court stated that if Ruggiero failed to respond by February 24, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed.
The order did not decide the underlying claims or the merits of the motions to dismiss. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Ruggiero permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.