Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2022

Dubose v. Jiminez

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-02124
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Dubose v. Jiminez, Judge Briccetti extended Dubose’s deadline to oppose a partial dismissal motion and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

Who this affects

Tyrek Dubose and the defendants, including C.O. Jiminez; the order extended Dubose’s response deadline and set a deadline for any defendants’ reply.

What happened

In Dubose v. Jiminez, Tyrek Dubose is representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees. The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss, and Dubose had not responded by the time of this order.

The court extended Dubose’s deadline to oppose the motion to November 28, 2022. Any reply from the defendants was due December 12, 2022. The order did not decide the partial motion to dismiss.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also determined that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Dubose permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The court directed its staff to mail Dubose a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dubose v. Jiminez · No. 7:22-cv-02124
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Oct. 27, 2022

Background

Tyrek Dubose, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court filing fees, started this action on March 14, 2022. The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss on September 30, 2022. The opinion states that Dubose had not responded to that motion.

Order

The court extended Dubose’s deadline to oppose the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss to November 28, 2022. The defendants’ reply, if any, was due December 12, 2022. This order did not rule on the partial motion to dismiss itself.

Appeal and Service

The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Dubose permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court also directed its chambers to mail a copy of the order to Dubose 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.