Febus v. CCS Correct Care Solutions
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:17-cv-03408
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Febus v. CCS Correct Care Solutions, Judge Briccetti extended Febus’s response deadline and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Fortunato K. Febus was given more time to oppose the defendants’ summary-judgment motion; the defendants received a later reply deadline if he responded.
What happened
In Fortunato K. Febus v. CCS Correct Care Solutions, the defendants had asked the court to grant summary judgment against Febus, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees.
Febus had not opposed the motion by the extended April 20, 2020 deadline. The court gave him another opportunity to respond, setting May 26, 2020, as the new deadline.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if Febus did not respond by then. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Febus v. CCS Correct Care Solutions · No. 7:17-cv-03408
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 4, 2020
Background
On January 17, 2020, CCS Correct Care Solutions, Sorrell Feldman, M.D., and the County of Orange moved for summary judgment against Fortunato K. Febus. Summary judgment is a procedure for resolving a case without a trial when the legal standards for doing so are met. The opinion states that Febus was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees.
The court had previously extended Febus’s deadline to oppose the motion to April 20, 2020. Febus had not filed an opposition by the time of this order.
Order
The court extended Febus’s deadline to oppose the summary-judgment motion to May 26, 2020. It ordered that, if Febus did not respond by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed and would be decided later. If Febus opposed the motion, the defendants’ reply, if any, would be due June 9, 2020.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. This order did not decide the pending summary-judgment motion or the merits of Febus’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.