Carrino v. Eckert
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-05909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carrino v. Eckert, Judge Briccetti deemed Carrino’s objection timely and set a response deadline.
Justin Carrino and Stewart Eckert; the order also governs Carrino’s future submissions to the court.
What happened
In Carrino v. Eckert, the court received Justin Carrino’s objection to a report and recommendation on February 15, 2023. Carrino also submitted proof that he gave the objection to prison authorities for mailing on February 8.
Applying the prison-mailbox rule, the court treated the objection as filed on February 8. The court said the objection would be docketed separately and allowed Stewart Eckert to respond by March 3, 2023, if he wished to do so.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also directed Carrino to send future correspondence to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit rather than directly to chambers. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Carrino v. Eckert · No. 7:21-cv-05909
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 17, 2023
Background
The court received petitioner Justin Carrino’s objection to a report and recommendation issued on January 31, 2023. The objection was received on February 15, 2023, but Carrino’s submission included an “Affidavit of Service” stating that he gave it to prison authorities for mailing on February 8, 2023.
Ruling on Filing Date
The court applied the prison-mailbox rule, which treats a submission from a prisoner as filed when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing. The court therefore deemed Carrino’s objection filed on February 8, 2023. The objection was to be docketed separately.
Response Deadline and Correspondence
The court stated that, if Stewart Eckert wished to respond to the objection, his response had to be filed by March 3, 2023—fourteen days after the order. The court also reminded Carrino to send future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit at the listed White Plains address. It stated that it would not consider future submissions mailed directly to chambers and directed chambers to mail Carrino a copy of the order.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order addressed the filing date, a possible response, and filing procedures. It did not resolve the underlying claims or rule on the report and recommendation.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.