Waters v. Lilley
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:17-cv-08258
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Waters v. Lilley, Judge Lehrburger excused a response and said he would decide the case on the existing record.
Keith Waters, the petitioner, was excused from submitting the response previously required by the court. The court will decide the case based on the existing record.
What happened
In Waters v. Lilley, the court addressed whether Keith Waters needed to respond to a September 20, 2022 letter from Lynn Lilley. The letter indicated that there was no reason to dismiss the case as moot.
The court said Waters did not need to submit the response required by an earlier order. Because Waters’s time to reply had expired years earlier, the court said it would decide the case based on the existing record.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued the order on September 20, 2022. This order did not state the result of the underlying case; it addressed only the response deadline and the record the court would use.
The detailed version
- Waters v. Lilley · No. 1:17-cv-08258
- Robert Lehrburger
- Sept. 20, 2022
Background
Keith Waters is the petitioner, and Lynn Lilley is the respondent. The opinion refers to an earlier order dated September 16, 2022, which had directed Waters to respond to a letter. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or identify the type of petition.
Order
Lilley sent a letter dated September 20, 2022, stating that there was no reason why the case should be dismissed as moot. In light of that letter, the court ruled that Waters did not need to respond as previously directed. The court also stated that Waters’s time to reply had expired years earlier and, consistent with previous orders, that it would decide the case based on the current record.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved the immediate response requirement but did not state a ruling on the underlying dispute. It also did not dismiss the case or state whether the petition would ultimately be granted or denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.