Harden v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-03839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harden v. Doe, Judge Briccetti deemed the defendants’ dismissal motion unopposed and fully submitted after Harden missed multiple deadlines.
Paul Harden, who lost the opportunity to oppose the pending dismissal motion by the stated deadline and was denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order; the defendants’ motion was treated as unopposed and fully submitted but was not decided in this order.
What happened
Harden v. Doe is a civil-rights case brought by Paul Harden against Sergeant Sahad and Lorie Badger. Harden was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss Harden’s second amended complaint. Harden requested and received several extensions to respond, but he did not file an opposition or request another extension by the final deadline.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the dismissal motion fully submitted and unopposed, stating that the court would consider it later. The judge also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Harden v. Doe · No. 7:19-cv-03839
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
Paul Harden brought this civil-rights action against Sergeant Sahad and Lorie Badger. The opinion states that Harden was representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees. The defendants moved to dismiss Harden’s second amended complaint on April 13, 2020.
Deadlines and Nonresponse
Harden first requested 60 additional days to respond. The court extended his deadline to June 29, 2020. He later requested another four-week extension, and the court extended the deadline to July 27, 2020.
Harden did not oppose the motion by July 27. On August 7, 2020, the court extended the deadline again, this time to September 8, 2020. That order warned, in bold and underlined text, that failure to respond by September 8 would cause the motion to be treated as fully submitted and unopposed.
Ruling
Harden still did not oppose the motion or request another extension. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti therefore deemed the motion fully submitted and unopposed and stated that the court would consider it in due course. The order did not decide whether the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted or denied.
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 Harden’s permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order. The court directed its chambers to mail Harden a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.