Washington v. Fitzpatrick
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Washington v. Fitzpatrick, Judge Briccetti extended Washington’s deadline to oppose dismissal and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Charles E. Washington and the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, including the schedule for responding to and replying to that motion.
What happened
In Washington v. Fitzpatrick, Charles E. Washington did not respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint by the original deadline or request more time. Washington was representing himself and was not required to prepay court fees.
The court extended his deadline to respond to September 7, 2020. It stated that if he did not respond by then, the dismissal motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed; any reply from the defendants would be due September 14, 2020.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to appeal without paying fees. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Fitzpatrick · No. 7:20-cv-00911
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
Charles E. Washington sued C.O. T. Fitzpatrick, C.O. K. Sain Clair, Sgt. Sheridan, Lt. Jordan, and Col. Sipple. The opinion states that Washington was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees. On July 17, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and mailed Washington copies of the motion and supporting documents. His opposition was due August 5, 2020.
Washington had not opposed the motion or requested an extension by the time of this order.
Court’s Action
The court extended Washington’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss until September 7, 2020. The court stated that if Washington did not respond by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. If he did respond, the defendants’ reply, if any, would be due September 14, 2020.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This order did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Washington’s claims. It addressed the deadline for responding to that motion and the ability to appeal this order without prepaying fees.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.