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 allowed Tyrone Houston to file a sur-reply, denied new evidence, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Tyrone Houston and the defendants in the case; the order also affects Houston’s ability to file the sur-reply, submit the proposed evidence, and appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Houston v. Capra, Tyrone Houston asked to file an additional response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss and to submit what he called newly discovered evidence.
The court allowed Houston to file the additional response, limited it to 10 pages, and set a November 12, 2020 deadline. The court said evidence generally cannot be submitted in response to a motion to dismiss because that motion asks only whether the complaint states a legal claim.
Judge Briccetti denied Houston’s request to submit the new evidence. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Houston permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Houston v. Capra · No. 7:20-cv-02135
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
On October 13, 2020, the court received Tyrone Houston’s letter asking for permission to file a sur-reply—an additional response after the parties’ usual briefing—and to submit “newly discovered evidence.” The request concerned the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Rulings
The court granted Houston’s request to file a sur-reply. It ordered that the sur-reply be no longer than 10 pages, double-spaced, and typed in 12-point or larger font. The court set November 12, 2020, as the filing deadline and stated that it would not extend that deadline absent exceptional circumstances.
The court denied Houston’s request to submit newly discovered evidence. It explained 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, and the court declined to do so at that time.
Appeal-related ruling
The court 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 paying the required filing fees. The court also directed its chambers to mail Houston a copy of the order at the address on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.