Carrasco v. Griffin
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:17-cv-09643
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carrasco v. Griffin, Judge Briccetti deemed Griffin’s summary-judgment motion unopposed after Carrasco missed the deadline, but had not yet decided it.
Jose Carrasco and Superintendent Thomas Griffin; the order determined how Griffin’s summary-judgment motion would proceed and denied Carrasco fee-free appeal status for this order.
What happened
In Carrasco v. Griffin, defendant Superintendent Thomas Griffin asked for summary judgment. The court had twice extended plaintiff Jose Carrasco’s deadline to respond, including granting his requested six-month extension.
Carrasco’s final deadline was December 6, 2022. He neither opposed the motion nor requested another extension, despite warnings that the court would treat the motion as fully submitted and unopposed.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti deemed the motion fully submitted and unopposed but said the court would decide it later. He also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Carrasco v. Griffin · No. 7:17-cv-09643
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 21, 2022
What the court addressed
Defendant Superintendent Thomas Griffin moved for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial because the moving party says the record shows no legally relevant dispute requiring one. The court did not decide whether Griffin was entitled to summary judgment in this order.
Why the motion was treated as unopposed
The court stated that Carrasco’s deadline to respond was December 6, 2022. The court had extended that deadline twice: the first extension followed Carrasco’s missed original deadline, and the second gave him the full six-month extension he requested. Carrasco did not respond to Griffin’s motion and did not request another extension. The court’s extension orders had warned that it was unlikely to grant further extensions and would treat the motion as fully submitted and unopposed if Carrasco missed the applicable deadline.
Ruling
For substantially the reasons in Griffin’s December 20, 2022, letter, the court deemed Griffin’s summary-judgment motion fully submitted and unopposed. The court stated that it would decide the motion later. Thus, this order did not grant or deny summary judgment.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Carrasco the ability to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The court directed its chambers to mail Carrasco 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.