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 deemed defendants’ dismissal motion unopposed after plaintiff failed to respond, but did not decide the motion.
Quentin Starkes and the correctional-officer defendants named in the action. The order primarily addressed Starkes’s failure to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss and his ability to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal.
What happened
In Starkes v. Annucci, Quentin Starkes, representing himself, sued Correctional Officers Byrd, Nieves, and Waal Rivera in a civil-rights action. The defendants moved to dismiss his amended complaint and mailed him the motion and supporting papers.
Starkes did not oppose the motion by the original deadline or request more time. The court then extended his deadline to May 20, 2020, and warned that failing to respond would cause the motion to be treated as fully submitted and unopposed.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the motion fully submitted and unopposed, stating that the court would consider it later. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss. The court also denied Starkes permission to proceed without paying filing fees on any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Starkes v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-07270
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 4, 2020
Background
Quentin Starkes, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action against Correctional Officer Byrd, Correctional Officer Nieves (Shield #1748), and Correctional Officer Waal Rivera (Shield #1725). The opinion states that the defendants moved to dismiss Starkes’s amended complaint on March 31, 2020, and mailed him copies of the motion and supporting documents.
Deadline to Respond
Starkes’s opposition was due April 17, 2020. He neither filed an opposition by that date nor requested an extension. On April 29, 2020, the court extended his deadline to May 20, 2020. That order warned, in bold and underlined text, that if Starkes did not respond by the new deadline, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. Starkes did not respond or request another extension.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that the motion to dismiss be deemed fully submitted and unopposed. The court stated that it would consider the motion in due course; this order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. 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 permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of such an appeal. Chambers was directed to mail Starkes a copy of the order at the address on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.