Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00972
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guest v. Department of Corrections, Judge Vyskocil ordered Michael Guest to respond to the dismissal motion by October 13, 2022.
Michael Guest was required to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss by October 13, 2022, or risk the motion being treated as unopposed and possible dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York, the defendants had asked the court to dismiss Michael Guest’s complaint, but the court had not received his response.
The court ordered Guest to file a response by October 13, 2022, or send a letter saying that he would not respond. If he filed a response, the defendants’ reply would be due October 20, 2022. If he did not respond, the motion would be treated as unopposed.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failing to follow the order could lead to dismissal of the case for failure to pursue it. The order did not decide whether the defendants’ dismissal motion should be granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00972
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 22, 2022
Background
Michael Guest filed the complaint on February 2, 2022. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on August 5, 2022. As of the date of this order, the court had not received Guest’s opposition to that motion. The order identifies Guest as proceeding without a lawyer.
Order
The court ordered Guest to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss by October 13, 2022, or file a letter stating that he would not oppose the motion. If Guest filed an opposition, the defendants’ reply, if any, was due October 20, 2022. If Guest chose not to file an opposition, the motion would be deemed unopposed.
Warning and disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that Guest’s failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to pursue the case. The Clerk was directed to mail Guest a copy of the order at the address of record. The court did not rule on the merits of the complaint or decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.