Houston v. Capra
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-02135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Houston v. Capra, Judge Briccetti denied without prejudice Houston’s premature request to file a further reply and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Tyrone Houston’s request for additional briefing and evidence was denied without prejudice, and his permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied. The pending motion to dismiss was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Houston v. Capra, Tyrone Houston asked the court to delay its decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss so he could respond again after receiving newly discovered evidence.
The court treated Houston’s request as a request to file a further reply and denied it without prejudice because the defendants had not yet filed their reply. The court said Houston could ask again after receiving that filing.
The court also said evidence generally cannot be submitted to answer a motion to dismiss and declined to treat the motion as a request for summary judgment. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti additionally denied Houston permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Houston v. Capra · No. 7:20-cv-02135
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
Tyrone Houston asked the court to stay, or delay, its decision on the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. He also sought permission to file a sur-reply, meaning an additional response to the defendants’ reply, based on newly discovered evidence that he said he had not yet received.
Rulings
The court construed Houston’s letter as a request to file a sur-reply and denied the request without prejudice because it was premature. The defendants had not yet filed their reply to Houston’s opposition, and their deadline was October 14, 2020. The court stated that Houston could request permission to file a sur-reply after receiving the defendants’ reply.
The court also reminded Houston that submitting evidence in response to a motion to dismiss is improper because the issue at that stage is whether the complaint states a claim for relief. Considering material outside the complaint would require converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The court declined to convert the motion at that time.
Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Houston permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order. The order addressed Houston’s request concerning additional briefing and evidence; it did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.