Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2022

Monroe v. Rockland County Correctional Facility

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-06807
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Monroe v. Rockland County Correctional Facility, Judge Briccetti entered judgment for defendants after Monroe failed to amend or seek more time.

Who this affects

Michael J. Monroe and the defendants named in the caption: Jouliana HSA Nurse Administrator, Lieutenant John Byron, Captain J.C. Jiska, and County of Rockland.

What happened

In Monroe v. Rockland County Correctional Facility, the court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Michael J. Monroe’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court allowed Monroe to file a second amended complaint by January 20, 2022, and warned that failing to do so or request more time would be treated as abandoning the case.

Monroe did not file a second amended complaint or ask for an extension. The court said it had mailed the earlier order to the address on the docket and had received no returned mail or other indication that Monroe did not receive it.

The court deemed Monroe to have abandoned the case and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Monroe permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Monroe v. Rockland County Correctional Facility · No. 7:20-cv-06807
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Feb. 3, 2022

Background

In an earlier opinion and order dated December 20, 2021, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Michael J. Monroe’s amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court gave Monroe permission to file a second amended complaint by January 20, 2022, following instructions in that earlier decision.

The court warned that if Monroe did not file a second amended complaint or request additional time by the deadline, it would treat him as having abandoned the case, direct the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and close the case. Chambers mailed the earlier opinion and order to Monroe at the address listed on the docket.

What happened after the deadline

By February 3, 2022, Monroe had not filed a second amended complaint and had not requested an extension. The court had not received returned mail or any other indication that Monroe failed to receive the December 20 order.

Ruling

The court deemed Monroe to have abandoned the case. Because the court had already granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and Monroe did not amend the complaint or request more time, it directed the Clerk to enter judgment in the defendants’ favor and close the case.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Monroe permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The opinion does not provide the allegations in the amended complaint or explain the reasoning from the earlier dismissal beyond stating that the complaint failed to state a claim.

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.