Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 10, 2020

Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-10388
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Briccetti extended Simmons’s deadline to oppose dismissal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Who this affects

Terri Simmons, who received additional time to oppose the dismissal motion but was denied permission to appeal this order without paying filing fees; the defendants, whose reply deadline was set if Simmons responded.

What happened

In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, the defendants had asked the court to dismiss Terri Simmons’s complaint. Simmons was representing herself and had not responded or requested more time.

The court extended Simmons’s deadline to respond to the dismissal motion to April 7, 2020. If she did not respond by then, the motion would be treated as ready for decision without her opposition. If she responded, the defendants’ reply would be due April 21, 2020.

Judge Briccetti also denied Simmons permission to appeal this order without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the defendants’ dismissal motion or the merits of the complaint.

The detailed version

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

Case
Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:19-cv-10388
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 10, 2020

Background

The defendants moved to dismiss Terri Simmons’s complaint on February 12, 2020. The defendants mailed Simmons copies of the motion and supporting documents. The order states that Simmons was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. By the date of the order, she had not opposed the motion or asked for an extension.

Court’s action

The court extended Simmons’s time to oppose the motion to dismiss until April 7, 2020. The court stated that, if Simmons did not respond by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. If she did respond, the defendants’ reply, if any, would be due April 21, 2020.

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. It therefore denied Simmons permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss, dismiss the case, or decide the underlying claims. The Clerk was directed to mail Simmons a copy of the order at the address 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.