Maldonado v. Gunsett
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Judge Briccetti denied Edwin Maldonado’s renewed request to leave the facility, finding the court lacked authority to order it.
Edwin Maldonado, whose renewed request to be removed from Mid-State Correctional Facility was denied; the order also affected his ability to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Edwin Maldonado, who was representing himself and unable to pay court fees, asked to be removed from Mid-State Correctional Facility. He said the move would protect him from retaliation by a correctional officer identified as a defendant under a placeholder name.
The court denied Maldonado’s renewed request. It relied on its earlier explanation that the court lacked authority to provide the requested relief.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Maldonado permission to appeal without paying court fees. The court reminded Maldonado to report any address change and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Gunsett · No. 7:21-cv-03719
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 22, 2022
Background
Edwin Maldonado was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court fees. In a letter dated July 1, 2022, he asked the court to remove him from Mid-State Correctional Facility, where the order states he currently resides. He said the removal was needed to protect him from retaliation by a correctional officer whom the Attorney General had recently identified as a “John Doe” defendant.
The court had docketed a July 18, 2022, memorandum endorsement denying that request and had mailed Maldonado a copy at the address listed on the docket. Maldonado sent another letter dated July 14, 2022, which the court docketed on July 20, again asking to be removed from the facility.
Ruling
The court again denied Maldonado’s request. It stated that, as explained in the July 18 order, the court lacked authority to provide the relief he requested.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Maldonado permission to appeal without paying court fees. The court also directed Maldonado to notify it in writing if his address changed and stated that it might dismiss the action if he failed to do so. Chambers was directed to mail him a copy of the order at the address on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.