Hibbert v. The State of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-08257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Conroy Hibbert, Jr. v. The City of New York, Judge Woods extended Hibbert’s amendment deadline and denied fee-free appeal status.
Conroy Hibbert, Jr., the plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, and the court clerk responsible for mailing the orders.
What happened
In Conroy Hibbert, Jr. v. The City of New York, the plaintiff notified the court that he had changed his address. The court noted that the clerk had already updated the docket.
The court ordered the clerk to mail the plaintiff copies of an earlier order and this order at his updated address. It also extended the plaintiff’s deadline to amend his complaint to 30 days from this order; the earlier order’s other instructions remained unchanged.
Judge Gregory H. Woods certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hibbert v. The State of New York · No. 1:22-cv-08257
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 21, 2023
What the order addressed
The plaintiff, who was proceeding without a lawyer, notified the court in a February 14, 2023 letter that he had changed his address. The letter was posted on the docket on February 17, 2023. The court observed that the clerk had already updated the plaintiff’s address on the docket.
Court’s actions
The court directed the clerk to mail the plaintiff copies of the court’s February 13, 2023 order and this order at the updated address, so the plaintiff would receive the earlier order. The court extended the plaintiff’s deadline to amend his complaint, following the instructions in the February 13 order, to 30 days from February 21, 2023. The court stated that the other instructions in the February 13 order were unchanged.
Appeal-related ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal. This order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.