Hernandez v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-06418
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hernandez v. City of New York, Judge Woods ordered the parties to finish discovery and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The parties to Hernandez v. City of New York, including Angel Hernandez, Ana Garcia, and the named defendants; the order also affects any party seeking to appeal without prepaying filing fees.
What happened
Hernandez v. City of New York concerns Angel Hernandez and Ana Garcia's case against the City of New York and the other named defendants. The order does not describe the claims or the underlying events.
The court directed the parties to complete discovery under the existing case-management and scheduling order. It also said they could request changes to the deadlines under the court's practice rules.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the clerk to mail the order and scheduling order to the plaintiff. He also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-06418
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
The caption identifies Angel Hernandez and Ana Garcia as plaintiffs and the City of New York, Manuel Siles, P.O. Shield # 844, Omar Habib, P.O. Shield # 844, and Diego Beekman Mutual Housing as defendants. The opinion is a case-management order and does not explain the claims or factual allegations.
Order
The court directed the parties to complete discovery in accordance with the case-management and scheduling order entered at Docket No. 41. The parties may request modifications to the deadlines under the court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.
The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order and Docket No. 41 to the plaintiff. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.