Kruppenbacher v. Annucci

Background

The court had previously ordered that, if the defendant filed a motion to dismiss by March 9, 2022, Joseph Kruppenbacher’s opposition would be due April 8 and the defendant’s reply would be due April 22. The court warned that failure to oppose the motion or request more time would cause the motion to be treated as fully submitted and unopposed.

The defendant filed the motion to dismiss on March 9. Kruppenbacher did not respond by April 8. On April 12, the court extended his opposition deadline to May 12 and again warned that the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if he did not respond. The opinion says the April 12 order mailed to the address listed on the docket was not returned, while a copy mailed to Fishkill Correctional Facility was returned as undeliverable.

The April 12 order also required Kruppenbacher to provide his current address in writing by May 12. The order warned that the court could dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders if he did not provide that information.

Rulings

Kruppenbacher did not oppose the motion to dismiss. The court therefore deemed the motion fully submitted and unopposed, but stated that it would decide the motion later. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss.

Kruppenbacher also did not update his address by May 12. The court extended the deadline to June 21, 2022. It warned that, if he failed to meet that deadline, it would deem the case abandoned and dismiss it for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court did not dismiss the case in this order.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.