Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 18, 2022

Monroe v. County of Rockland

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:21-cv-05244
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Monroe v. County of Rockland, Judge Briccetti deemed defendants’ motion to dismiss fully submitted after Monroe missed the opposition deadline.

Who this affects

Michael J. Monroe and the defendants—County of Rockland, Masi, Food Service Supervisor, and Jouliana Petranaker, H.S.A. Nurse Administrator—were affected. The defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending for later decision.

What happened

In Monroe v. County of Rockland, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. Michael J. Monroe did not file a response by the original deadline.

The court gave Monroe more time, extending his deadline to January 6, 2022, and warned that no further extensions would be granted. Monroe still did not respond.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the motion to dismiss fully submitted and stated that the court would decide it later. The court also denied Monroe permission to appeal without paying the filing fees, certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Monroe v. County of Rockland · No. 7:21-cv-05244
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Jan. 18, 2022

Background

The defendants—County of Rockland, Masi, Food Service Supervisor, and Jouliana Petranaker, H.S.A. Nurse Administrator—moved to dismiss the case on November 19, 2021. The notice of motion stated that Monroe’s opposition was due November 29, 2021, and that the defendants’ reply was due December 6, 2021. Monroe did not respond by December 6.

Additional Time

On December 7, 2021, the court extended Monroe’s deadline to oppose the motion to January 6, 2022. The court warned that it would grant no further extensions and would treat the motion as fully submitted if Monroe did not respond by that date. Monroe still did not file an opposition.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the defendants’ motion to dismiss fully submitted and stated that the court would decide it later. This order did not decide whether the motion to dismiss should be granted or denied. 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 and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court directed its chambers to mail Monroe a copy of the order at the address on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.