Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 27, 2020

Barry v. The State of New York

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-04189
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Barry v. Lamanna, Judge Briccetti ordered defendants to answer discovery by August 14, 2020, and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Mamadou Barry and the defendants, because the order set the defendants’ response deadline for Barry’s discovery requests and left the other discovery deadlines unchanged.

What happened

Mamadou Barry v. Jaime Lamanna, Duncan S. Bey, Jr., and Chantel K. Elmore is an order about Barry’s discovery requests in his case.

Barry, who was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, mailed interrogatories and document requests to the Pro Se Clerk. The clerk received and filed those requests on July 24, 2020.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the defendants to respond by August 14, 2020, and said that deadline would not be extended. The court left the other discovery deadlines unchanged and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Barry v. The State of New York · No. 7:19-cv-04189
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
July 27, 2020

Background

The court had previously instructed Mamadou Barry, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, to mail his interrogatories and requests for documents to the Pro Se Clerk. The clerk would then file the requests on the electronic docket so the defendants could receive and answer them. The clerk received and docketed Barry’s discovery requests on July 24, 2020.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the defendants to respond to Barry’s discovery requests by August 14, 2020. The order stated that this deadline would not be extended. It also provided that all other discovery deadlines from the court’s March 9, 2020 order remained unchanged.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, it denied Barry permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order. The court also directed Chambers to mail Barry a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.