Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 23, 2020

PROCTOR v. MCCOY

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:15-cv-03766
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In PROCTOR v. MCCOY, Judge Carter granted Proctor’s late request for more time to oppose defendants’ motion and set a June 1, 2020 deadline.

Who this affects

Demetrius Proctor received additional time to oppose defendants’ motion; defendants were required to serve the order and file proof of service.

What happened

In PROCTOR v. MCCOY, Demetrius Proctor, who was representing himself, asked for more time to respond to defendants’ motion. Defendants opposed that request in a March 11, 2020 letter.

The court granted Proctor’s late request for an extension. Because of the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency, it set June 1, 2020, as the deadline for Proctor to file his response.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. also ordered defendants to serve Proctor with the order by March 30, 2020, and to file proof of service by April 3, 2020.

The detailed version

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

Case
PROCTOR v. MCCOY · No. 1:15-cv-03766
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Mar. 23, 2020

Background

Demetrius Proctor was proceeding without a lawyer. He requested additional time to file his opposition to defendants’ motion. The court received a March 11, 2020 letter from defendants opposing Proctor’s request.

Ruling

The court granted Proctor’s untimely request for a time extension, citing his status as a self-represented plaintiff and the ongoing public health emergency caused by COVID-19. The court directed Proctor to file his opposition by June 1, 2020.

Service Requirements

The court directed defendants to serve Proctor with a copy of the order no later than March 30, 2020. Defendants were required to file proof of service with the court by April 3, 2020.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the request for an extension. The opinion does not state the subject or merits of defendants’ underlying motion.

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.