Jackson v. Pagan
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-05176
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jackson v. Pagan, Judge Briccetti adjourned a case-management conference and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
Thomas Jackson, Sergeant E. Pagan, defense counsel, and the scheduled case-management conference.
What happened
In Jackson v. Pagan, the court had scheduled a case-management conference for July 7, 2021. The court had also extended Thomas Jackson’s deadline to respond to outstanding discovery requests and directed defense counsel to investigate the location of his belongings.
The court adjourned the conference to August 30, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. It also stated that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued the order on June 30, 2021. The order addressed scheduling, discovery-related matters, and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Pagan · No. 7:20-cv-05176
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 30, 2021
Background
On May 19, 2021, the court had scheduled a case-management conference for July 7, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. On June 29, 2021, the court extended plaintiff Thomas Jackson’s time to respond to outstanding discovery requests to July 29, 2021. The court also ordered defense counsel to investigate the whereabouts of Jackson’s belongings and file a letter about that investigation by July 13, 2021.
Order
The court adjourned the July 7 case-management conference to August 30, 2021, at 3:30 p.m.
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 proceed without paying the required fees for purposes of an appeal. The court also stated that chambers would mail Jackson a copy of the order at the address on the docket.
Effect
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order changed the conference date and addressed the discovery-related deadlines and investigation. It did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.