Gunn v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-11821
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gunn v. Doe, Judge Briccetti extended Gunn’s deadline to oppose dismissal and denied fee-free appeal status for this order.
Darrell Gunn received additional time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss but was denied permission to appeal this order without prepaying fees. The defendants received a new potential reply deadline if Gunn responded.
What happened
In Gunn v. Doe, the defendants moved to dismiss Darrell Gunn’s amended complaint and mailed him the motion papers. Gunn was representing himself without a lawyer and had not responded by the original deadline.
The court extended Gunn’s deadline to oppose the dismissal motion to August 28, 2020. If he did not respond by then, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed; any defendants’ reply would be due September 4, 2020, if Gunn responded.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Gunn permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the defendants’ dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Doe · No. 7:19-cv-11821
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 7, 2020
Background
Defendants moved on July 6, 2020, to dismiss Darrell Gunn’s amended complaint. The motion and supporting documents were mailed to Gunn. The opinion states that Gunn was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees. His opposition was due July 23, 2020, under the cited federal and local rules.
Order
Gunn had not opposed the motion or requested more time. The court extended his deadline to August 28, 2020. If Gunn did not respond by that date, the court would treat the motion as fully submitted and unopposed. If he did respond, defendants’ reply, if any, would be due September 4, 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 Gunn permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the claims in the amended complaint.
Effect
The order changed the deadline for Gunn’s response and set the consequences of failing to respond. It also denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order. The opinion does not state the later outcome of the dismissal motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.