Brown v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-09048
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti extended Brown’s deadline to oppose dismissal and warned the motion would be unopposed if he did not respond.
Byron K. Brown, who received additional time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the moving defendants, whose reply deadline was set if Brown responded.
What happened
In Brown v. Annucci, several defendants asked the court to dismiss Byron K. Brown’s amended complaint. Brown was representing himself and had not responded by the original deadline or asked for more time.
The court extended Brown’s deadline to respond to June 12, 2020. If he did not respond by then, the court said the dismissal motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed; if he responded, the defendants’ reply would be due June 26, 2020.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-09048
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 15, 2020
Background
Defendants Anthony Annucci, Michael Capra, V. Young, K. Green, T. Bowen, M. Barnes, M. Royce, D. Venettozzi, L. Malin, and J. Deckelbaum moved to dismiss Byron K. Brown’s amended complaint on April 20, 2020. The defendants mailed Brown copies of the motion and supporting documents. Brown was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court fees based on inability to pay. His opposition was due May 7, 2020.
The order states that Brown had not opposed the motion or requested an extension by the date of the order.
Ruling
The court extended Brown’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss until June 12, 2020. The court stated that, if Brown failed to respond by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. If Brown opposed the motion, any reply from the defendants would be due June 26, 2020.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Brown permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Effect
The order changed the deadline for Brown’s response and set the consequences for failing to respond. It did not state that the complaint was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.