Young v. Carter
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-08973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Young v. Carter, Judge Vyskocil granted defendants’ request to extend their deadline for filing a motion to dismiss.
The order affected Jason Young and the defendants Carter, Guerra, and Horton by extending the defendants’ deadline and setting a briefing schedule.
What happened
Jason Young, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued Warden Carter and other defendants over alleged conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center. The defendants sought more time to respond to the complaint.
The defendants said they intended to ask the court to dismiss the case based on alleged failure to complete required administrative steps and because the alleged temporary lack of supplies, food, and water did not amount to a serious enough constitutional deprivation. They missed an earlier deadline to file the motion and requested an extension through June 8, 2022.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the request. She set June 8 for the defendants’ motion, August 8 for Young’s opposition, and August 22 for the defendants’ reply, and told Young not to seek a default judgment at that time.
The detailed version
- Young v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-08973
- Vyskocil
- June 3, 2022
Background
Jason Young alleged that conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center violated his constitutional rights. The opinion states that Young was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer. The defendants identified as Carter, Guerra, and Horton were represented by the New York City Law Department.
Request for more time
The defendants asked for a retroactive extension through June 8, 2022, to serve and file a motion to dismiss the complaint. They explained that the court had previously authorized a motion to dismiss by April 28, 2022, but the deadline was not calendared after the former assigned attorney withdrew. The defendants also noted that the court had directed Young to seek default judgment after they failed to respond to the complaint.
The proposed motion to dismiss would argue that Young had not completed the administrative process required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It would also argue that the alleged temporary lack of toilet paper, soap, and toothbrushes for two to three days, and food and water for seven to eight hours, did not constitute an objectively serious deprivation required for a constitutional conditions-of-confinement claim. The opinion does not decide either argument.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the extension. The defendants were directed to serve and file their motion to dismiss on June 8, 2022. Young’s opposition was due by August 8, 2022, and the defendants’ reply was due by August 22, 2022. Because the court extended the defendants’ response time retroactively, it directed Young not to seek default judgment at that time. The court warned that failure to follow the briefing schedule could result in the motion being treated as unopposed and that failure to comply with court orders could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.