Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 2, 2020

Gomez v. Francis DelGrosso

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-01335
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gomez v. DelGrosso, Judge Briccetti ordered the unrepresented plaintiff to update his address and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.

Who this affects

Santiago Gomez was required to provide the court with his current address by March 23, 2020. The order warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action and denied fee-free status for an appeal from the order.

What happened

In Gomez v. DelGrosso, Santiago Gomez was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees. The court had previously mailed him an opinion, order, and notice of an initial conference at the address listed in the case.

The mail was returned on March 2, 2020, marked “Return to sender—Box Closed. No Order.” The court reminded Gomez that he had to notify the court in writing if his address changed.

Judge Vincent Briccetti ordered Gomez to provide his current address in writing by March 23, 2020. The judge warned that failing to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey court orders, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gomez v. Francis DelGrosso · No. 7:19-cv-01335
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 2, 2020

Background

Santiago Gomez, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court fees, filed the action in February 2019. On February 10, 2020, the court issued an opinion and order that granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court mailed that opinion and order, along with a notice of the initial conference, to Gomez at the address listed on the docket.

On March 2, 2020, the court received the mail back as undeliverable. The envelope was marked: “Return to sender—Box Closed. No Order.” The court noted that its earlier order had told Gomez that he was responsible for notifying the court in writing of any address change and that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Order

The court ordered Gomez to update his current address in writing by March 23, 2020. It warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This order did not itself dismiss the action.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, Gomez was denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Gomez at the address listed on the docket.

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.