Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 6, 2020

Jackson v. City of Peekskill Police Department

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-10870
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jackson v. City of Peekskill Police Department, Judge Briccetti granted Jackson’s request to withdraw his proposed second amended complaint.

Who this affects

Walter J. Jackson and defendants Alvaro Farias and the City of Peekskill; the order kept Jackson’s existing amended complaint in place and set a deadline for defendants’ reply on their motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Walter J. Jackson v. Alvaro Farias and City of Peekskill, Jackson, representing himself, asked to withdraw his request to file a second amended complaint. The court had previously allowed him to seek permission to file it.

The court granted Jackson’s request. His existing amended complaint remained the operative pleading, meaning it continued to control the case.

Judge Briccetti also set August 13, 2020, as the deadline for defendants’ reply supporting their motion to dismiss. The court said it would consider that motion later and denied appeal-fee waiver status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. City of Peekskill Police Department · No. 7:19-cv-10870
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Aug. 6, 2020

Background

The court had previously granted Jackson, who was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, permission to file a second amended complaint. Jackson later asked to withdraw that request.

Ruling

The court granted Jackson’s request. It stated that Jackson’s existing amended complaint remained the operative pleading in the action.

The court also ordered that defendants’ reply, if any, supporting their pending motion to dismiss was due August 13, 2020. The court stated that it would consider the motion later.

Appeal-related certification

The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The request to withdraw the proposed second amended complaint was granted. The order also set a briefing deadline and left the motion to dismiss for later consideration.

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.