Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 10, 2023

McGinnis v. Orange County Jail

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-03335
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In McGinnis v. Orange County, Judge Briccetti kept the case closed after McGinnis failed to update his address and follow court orders.

Who this affects

The order affects Jermaine McGinnis, whose case remains closed and who was denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The defendants are not required to respond further in this order.

What happened

In McGinnis v. Orange County, the court had dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The plaintiff was representing himself and was not required to pay filing fees.

The plaintiff asked the court to reopen the case, explaining that he had been hospitalized, became homeless, contracted COVID-19, and was arrested and incarcerated. The court found that these statements did not justify his failure to comply with orders requiring him to provide a current address.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti left the case closed and found no basis to reopen it. The court also denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
McGinnis v. Orange County Jail · No. 7:22-cv-03335
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 10, 2023

Background

Jermaine McGinnis sued Orange County and several correction officers. The opinion states that McGinnis was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. On November 17, 2022, the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. On March 27, 2023, the court denied McGinnis’s request to reopen the case and reiterated that the case had been dismissed.

Motion to Reopen

The court received McGinnis’s motion for reconsideration on April 6, 2023. He sought to reopen the case and stated that he had been released from a hospital to his aunt’s house, became homeless, contracted COVID-19, and was arrested and incarcerated during a period he identified in the motion. The court concluded that these statements did not justify his failure to comply with August 23 and October 3, 2022, orders requiring him to update his address in writing.

The court also noted that earlier orders had warned McGinnis that he was responsible for reporting address changes and that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so. The court therefore stated that the case remained closed and that McGinnis’s motion contained no basis to reopen it.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti left the case closed. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court directed its chambers to mail McGinnis a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.

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.