Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 13, 2022

Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-10388
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Briccetti extended Simmons’s deadline to oppose a pending dismissal motion and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Terri Simmons and the defendants responding to the pending motion to dismiss, including Nicole Murphy, Penny Beckman, Mount Vernon City School District, Felecia Gaon, Putnam/Northern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Michele Fret, Shelley Einbinder Fleischmann, and Kenneth R. Hamilton.

What happened

Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon concerns a dismissal motion filed against Terri Simmons’s second amended complaint. Simmons was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, and her response was due June 3, 2022.

Because Simmons had not responded, the court extended her deadline to June 27, 2022. If she did not respond by then, the court would treat the motion as fully submitted and unopposed; any reply from defendants would be due July 5, 2022.

Judge Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Simmons permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not decide the pending dismissal motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:19-cv-10388
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
June 13, 2022

Background

Defendants moved on May 20, 2022, to dismiss Terri Simmons’s second amended complaint. The opinion states that Simmons was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. Her deadline to oppose the motion was June 3, 2022, but she had not filed an opposition by the time of this order.

Court’s action

The court extended Simmons’s deadline to respond to June 27, 2022. If she did not respond by that date, the dismissal motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed and would later be decided. If Simmons did respond, defendants’ reply, if any, would be due July 5, 2022. This order did not rule on the merits of the dismissal motion.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The court also directed its chambers to mail Simmons a copy of the order at the address on the docket.

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.