Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-07336-NSR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department, Judge Roman denied Pena’s request to file late supplemental papers while the dismissal motion remained pending.
Juan Pena’s request to file additional papers was denied, while the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss remained awaiting decision.
What happened
Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department concerns Juan Pena’s request for more time to file a supplemental memorandum responding to the defendants’ motion to dismiss his third amended complaint.
Pena filed the request after the dismissal motion had already been fully addressed by both sides. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that Pena waited about eight months, had not previously requested more time, and sought to add new arguments rather than respond to new matters in the defendants’ reply.
The court denied Pena’s request for leave to file supplemental papers and directed the clerk to terminate that motion. The court said the dismissal motion would be decided later. Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide the underlying dismissal motion in this order.
The detailed version
- Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department · No. 7:19-cv-07336-NSR
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
Juan Pena, proceeding without a lawyer, asked for an additional 30 days to file a supplemental memorandum concerning the defendants’ motion to dismiss his third amended complaint. The court reviewed Pena’s motion, dated November 27, 2021, and the defendants’ opposition, dated December 20, 2021.
The defendants argued that their dismissal motion had been fully briefed in April 2021. They said Pena had not sought an extension to oppose the motion, waited almost eight months before seeking permission to file more papers, and did not claim that the defendants’ reply raised new matters that required a response. They characterized Pena’s request as an attempt to file a late reply and asked the court to deny it. Alternatively, they asked for 30 days to respond if the court allowed Pena to file the additional papers.
Ruling
The court denied Pena’s request for leave to file a supplemental memorandum. It stated that the parties had fully briefed the motion to dismiss in April 2021 and that the motion would be decided in due course. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 43, mail the endorsement to Pena, and record service on the docket. This order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the claims in the case.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it resolves an extension-of-time request concerning briefing and does not reach the merits of the underlying claims or dismissal motion.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.