Corwell v. Westchester County
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-03049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Corwell v. Westchester County, Judge Briccetti deemed defendants’ dismissal motion unopposed after plaintiff missed extended deadlines.
The order affects plaintiff Ziare Corwell by treating the defendants’ motion to dismiss as fully submitted and unopposed and by denying fee-free status for an appeal from the order. It affects the defendants by allowing their unopposed motion to proceed for decision. The order does not state the outcome of the motion to dismiss.
What happened
Corwell v. Westchester County is a civil-rights case brought by plaintiff Ziare Corwell, who was representing themself and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, against Westchester County and several individual defendants.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Corwell did not respond by the original deadline or by the later deadline the court provided, and did not ask for another extension.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the dismissal motion fully submitted and unopposed. The order does not say whether the court granted or denied that motion. It also denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order after finding that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Corwell v. Westchester County · No. 7:19-cv-03049
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Ziare Corwell brought this civil-rights action against Westchester County, Assistant Warden LaFonda Spaulding, Officer Adames, Officer Beltran, Officer Cardillo, Officer Cozier, Sergeant Davis, Correctional Officer Melendez, and Correctional Officer Schilliro. Corwell was representing themself and was proceeding without paying filing fees.
Defendants’ Motion and Missed Deadlines
On December 2, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss Corwell’s amended complaint and mailed Corwell copies of the motion and supporting papers. Corwell’s opposition was due December 19, 2019. Corwell neither filed an opposition nor requested an extension by that date.
On December 27, 2019, the court extended the deadline to January 17, 2020. The court’s order expressly warned that if Corwell did not respond by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. Corwell again did not file an opposition or request an extension.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be deemed fully submitted and unopposed. The opinion does not state that the motion to dismiss itself was granted or denied, and it does not decide the underlying claims.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal and directed the clerk to mail Corwell a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.