Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2023

Pitt v. County of Rockland

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-08356
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Pitt v. Rockland County, Judge Briccetti extended service time and paused defendants’ response deadlines without deciding the claims.

Who this affects

Malcolm Pitt and the defendants, including Officer Spencer, were affected by the revised service and response deadlines; the U.S. Marshals Service and clerk also received administrative directions.

What happened

In Pitt v. County of Rockland, Malcolm Pitt, who is incarcerated and representing himself, had not filed proof that Officer Spencer had been served by the February 28, 2023 deadline. Defense counsel asked for more time to respond to Pitt’s written discovery requests because Spencer had not been served.

The court extended Pitt’s deadline to serve Officer Spencer to April 3, 2023. It also paused all defendants’ deadlines to respond to the discovery requests and confirmed that their deadlines to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint remained paused. The clerk was directed to terminate the defense letter-motion.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Pitt’s permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pitt v. County of Rockland · No. 7:22-cv-08356
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 7, 2023

Background

Malcolm Pitt, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, brought this action against Rockland County and several individual defendants. The court had previously directed the clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to assist with service on Officer Spencer and had extended Pitt’s deadline to serve the remaining defendants to 90 days after the clerk issued Spencer’s summons.

The clerk issued the summons for Officer Spencer on November 30, 2022, making the service deadline February 28, 2023. The docket contained no proof of service by the time of this order. Defense counsel filed a letter-motion seeking an extension to respond to Pitt’s interrogatories and requests for document production under Local Rule 33.2 because Officer Spencer had not yet been served.

Rulings

The court ordered the following:

- Pitt’s deadline to serve Officer Spencer was extended to April 3, 2023. - All defendants’ deadlines to respond to the Local Rule 33.2 discovery requests were stayed until a further court order. - All defendants’ deadlines to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint remained stayed until a further court order. - The clerk was directed to terminate the defense letter-motion.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed service, discovery timing, and case deadlines; it did not reach the merits of Pitt’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.