Duncan v. Sullivan County
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-09269
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Duncan v. Sullivan County, Judge Halpern refused Duncan’s late extension request, found a conference unnecessary, and denied other requested relief.
Jennifer Duncan’s requests for more time, a conference, a stay, and other affirmative relief were affected; the defendants’ dismissal motions were not decided by this order.
What happened
In Duncan v. Sullivan County, the court addressed Jennifer Duncan’s filings concerning objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the defendants’ dismissal motions be granted and the case dismissed with prejudice.
The court had already extended the deadline for objections to February 2, 2022, and warned that no further extensions would be granted. Duncan then filed several documents as “Temporarily Pro Se,” although she was represented by an attorney. The court also considered her requests for a conference, another adjournment, a future stay, and other relief.
The court refused to grant another extension, found a conference unnecessary, and denied other requested relief because an earlier order barred motions seeking affirmative relief. Judge Philip M. Halpern did not rule in this order on whether to adopt the recommendation or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Duncan v. Sullivan County · No. 7:18-cv-09269
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
On December 29, 2021, Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison issued a report and recommendation concluding that the defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted and recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The deadline for objections was January 12, 2022.
On January 10, Jennifer Duncan’s attorney requested more time to prepare and present what the request described as numerous proposed findings of fact. The court extended the objection deadline to February 2, 2022, marked the extension as final for Duncan, and warned that no further extensions would be granted.
Filings and requests
Near and on the extended deadline, Duncan filed several documents describing herself as “Temporarily Pro Se,” meaning she purported to file without her lawyer. The opinion states that attorney Henry N. Christensen, Jr. was still counsel of record. The court explained that it could reject filings submitted directly by a represented party in a civil case.
One filing requested a conference, another adjournment, and a future stay. The defendants opposed the request. The court also noted that an earlier order had stayed motions seeking affirmative relief pending further order.
Ruling
The court would not grant Duncan’s belated request for another extension because the court had already granted an extension, had warned that no further extensions would be allowed, and had not received the request at least 48 hours before the deadline as required by the judge’s individual practices, absent an emergency.
To the extent Duncan requested a conference, the court deemed one unnecessary given the procedural posture of the case. The court denied any other forms of future affirmative relief because of the earlier stay order, which remained in effect.
This order does not state that the court adopted or rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and it does not itself grant or deny the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.