Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 18, 2020

Santos v. Cuomo

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-05398
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Santos v. Cuomo, Judge Briccetti extended Santos’s deadline to oppose a motion to dismiss and addressed appeal-fee status.

Who this affects

Byron Santos, who was representing himself, and defendants Anthony Annucci and Robert Morton, Jr., whose motion to dismiss remained pending.

What happened

In Santos v. Cuomo, defendants Anthony Annucci and Robert Morton, Jr. moved to dismiss Byron Santos’s complaint. Santos was representing himself and had not opposed the motion or requested more time.

The court extended Santos’s deadline to respond to March 17, 2020. If he did not respond by then, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed; any defendants’ reply would be due March 31, 2020.

Judge Briccetti also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Santos permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The clerk was directed to mail Santos a copy of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Santos v. Cuomo · No. 7:19-cv-05398
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Feb. 18, 2020

Background

Defendants Anthony Annucci and Robert Morton, Jr. moved to dismiss Byron Santos’s complaint on December 3, 2019. The motion papers were mailed to Santos, who was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees. The court had previously extended his deadline to oppose the motion to January 30, 2020. Santos did not oppose the motion by that date and did not request another extension.

Order

The court extended Santos’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss to March 17, 2020. The court stated that if Santos did not respond by then, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. If Santos did oppose the motion, any reply from the defendants would be due March 31, 2020. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.

Appeal and mailing

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The clerk was directed to mail Santos a copy of the order. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.