Washington v. Falco
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-03009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Washington v. Falco, Judge Briccetti corrected motion deadlines, ordered Dexter Washington to respond or seek more time, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Dexter Washington was required to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss or request an extension by August 6, 2020. The defendants’ reply deadline was set for August 13, 2020, and Washington was denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Washington v. Falco, defendants moved to dismiss Dexter Washington’s complaint and told him his opposition was due August 14, 2020. The opinion states that Washington was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court corrected the deadlines: Washington’s opposition was due August 6, 2020, and any defendants’ reply was due August 13, 2020. Washington was ordered to file an opposition or request an extension by August 6.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington’s fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Falco · No. 7:20-cv-03009
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 21, 2020
Background
Defendants Louis Falco, identified as a sheriff, and David Lowe, identified as a sergeant, moved to dismiss Dexter Washington’s complaint on July 20, 2020. They mailed Washington copies of the motion and supporting documents. Washington was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees.
The defendants’ notice of motion stated that Washington’s opposition was due August 14, 2020, and that any reply was due August 20, 2020.
Order
The court stated that those dates were incorrect. It ruled that Washington’s opposition was due August 6, 2020, and that any defendants’ reply was due August 13, 2020. The court ordered Washington to file an opposition or request an extension of time by August 6, 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. It therefore denied Washington permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court directed its chambers to mail Washington a copy of the order.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This was a procedural order about briefing deadlines and appeal-fee status. It did not decide whether the motion to dismiss should be granted or denied, and it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.