PROCTOR v. MCCOY
- Andrew Carter
- 1:15-cv-03766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In PROCTOR v. MCCOY, Judge Carter interpreted Proctor’s letter as an extension request and ordered defendants to respond by March 11, 2020.
Demetrius Proctor and the defendants, including Travis McCoy, because the order treated Proctor’s letter as a request for more time and required the defendants to respond by March 11, 2020.
What happened
In PROCTOR v. MCCOY, Demetrius Proctor was representing himself while responding to the defendants’ request to dismiss the case. The Court had set January 20, 2020, as the deadline for his response.
After receiving no response, the Court ordered Proctor to explain why the defendants’ request should not be treated as unopposed. The Court then located a letter Proctor had dated February 3, 2020, which was filed on March 4, and treated it as a request for more time.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the defendants to respond to Proctor’s letter by March 11, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying request to dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- PROCTOR v. MCCOY · No. 1:15-cv-03766
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
The Court had set a briefing schedule for the defendants’ motion to dismiss on October 21, 2019. Proctor, who was proceeding without a lawyer, requested an extension on December 12, 2019. The Court granted the request and set January 20, 2020, as the deadline for Proctor’s opposition to the motion.
When the Court had not received an opposition by March 2, 2020, it issued an order requiring Proctor to explain why the defendants’ motion should not be treated as unopposed. Proctor had sent the Court a letter dated February 3, 2020, but the letter was not entered on the electronic docket until March 4, 2020.
Court’s Analysis
The Court explained that submissions by people representing themselves must be read generously, including by interpreting them to present the strongest arguments they reasonably suggest. Applying that principle, the Court interpreted Proctor’s letter as a request for additional time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The Court ordered the defendants to respond to Proctor’s letter on or before March 11, 2020. This order addressed the timing and handling of Proctor’s response; it did not rule on the defendants’ underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.