Megginson v. Stukes
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-09599
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Megginson v. Stukes, Judge Vyskocil gave Megginson more time to respond to defendants’ dismissal motion and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Michael E. Megginson and the defendants, including Chief Stukes.
What happened
In Megginson v. Stukes, Michael E. Megginson, who was representing himself, had not responded to the defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint. The court had previously set an October 27, 2022 deadline for his response.
The court ordered Megginson to respond by December 1, 2022, or submit a letter saying that he would not oppose the motion. If he responded, the defendants could file a reply by December 8, 2022. The court said the motion would be treated as unopposed if Megginson chose not to respond.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failing to follow the order could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Megginson v. Stukes · No. 1:21-cv-09599
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 1, 2022
Background
Michael E. Megginson filed the complaint on November 18, 2021, and was representing himself. On September 29, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court had directed Megginson to file an opposition by October 27, 2022, but had not received one as of November 1, 2022.
Order
The court ordered Megginson to file his opposition by December 1, 2022. Alternatively, he could file a letter stating that he would not oppose the motion. If he filed an opposition, the defendants’ reply, if any, would be due by December 8, 2022. If Megginson chose not to oppose the motion, the motion would be treated as unopposed.
Effect of the Order
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failing to comply with the order could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or follow a court order. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss or otherwise decide the merits of the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.