Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 23, 2020

Houston v. Capra

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-02135
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Motion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Houston v. Capra, Judge Briccetti set a reply deadline and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from the order.

Who this affects

Tyrone Houston and the defendants in his Section 1983 action; the order specifically set the defendants’ reply deadline and affected Houston’s ability to appeal without paying fees.

What happened

Houston v. Capra concerns defendants’ motion to dismiss Houston’s civil-rights complaint. Houston was proceeding without a lawyer, and defendants served the motion and supporting papers by mail.

The court had extended Houston’s deadline to oppose the motion to September 16, 2020. Houston’s signed opposition was filed on September 22, 2020.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that defendants’ reply, if any, was due September 30, 2020. The court also stated that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for that appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Houston v. Capra · No. 7:20-cv-02135
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Sept. 23, 2020

Background

Defendants moved to dismiss Tyrone Houston’s complaint in this Section 1983 civil-rights action on July 28, 2020. The opinion states that Houston was proceeding without a lawyer and that defendants served him by regular mail with the motion and supporting papers that day.

Houston’s opposition was initially due August 11, 2020. The court extended the deadline to September 12, and then granted Houston’s request for another extension to September 16. Houston signed his opposition on September 11, but it was received and filed on the docket on September 22.

Order

The court ordered that defendants’ reply to Houston’s opposition, if any, was due September 30, 2020. The order did not decide defendants’ motion to dismiss.

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. As a result, it denied Houston permission to pursue an appeal without paying the required fees. The court stated that a copy of the order would be mailed to Houston.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.