Starkes v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-07270
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Starkes v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti extended Starkes’s deadline to oppose dismissal and denied fee-free appeal status.
Quentin Starkes received additional time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, while the defendants received a later potential reply deadline. Starkes was also denied permission to appeal this order without paying filing fees.
What happened
Starkes v. Annucci concerns a motion to dismiss Quentin Starkes’s amended complaint. The defendants mailed Starkes the motion and supporting papers on March 31, 2020, and his response was due April 17, 2020.
Starkes had not responded or requested more time. The court extended his deadline to May 20, 2020. If he did not respond by then, the motion would be treated as fully submitted without opposition; if he responded, any reply from the defendants would be due May 27, 2020.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Starkes permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Starkes v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-07270
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 29, 2020
Background
The opinion identifies Quentin Starkes as the plaintiff and lists C.O. Byrd, C.O. Nieves, and C.O. Waal Rivera as defendants. It states that Starkes was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court fees. On March 31, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss Starkes’s amended complaint and mailed him copies of the motion and supporting documents. His opposition was due April 17, 2020.
Order
The court stated that Starkes had not opposed the motion or requested an extension. Acting on its own initiative, the court extended his deadline to oppose the motion to May 20, 2020. The court ordered that, if Starkes did not respond by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. If he did respond, any reply from the defendants would be due May 27, 2020.
Appeal-Fee Ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Starkes permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The order addressed scheduling and appeal-fee status; it did not rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of the amended complaint.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.