Pitt v. County of Rockland
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-08356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pitt v. County of Rockland, Judge Briccetti ordered defendants to respond to the amended complaint and Local Rule 33.2 demands after service was completed.
Malcolm Pitt, Rockland County, Sergeant Ob Lenis, Sergeant Lowe, Correction Officer Karney, Correction Officer G. Vandunk, Officer Figueroa, and Officer Spencer.
What happened
Pitt v. County of Rockland concerns Malcolm Pitt’s case against Rockland County and six individual defendants. The order states that Pitt is incarcerated, is proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees, and that all defendants had been served.
The court ordered the defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint by May 1, 2023. It also ordered them to respond to the Local Rule 33.2 demands by August 8, 2023.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pitt’s fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Pitt v. County of Rockland · No. 7:22-cv-08356
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 11, 2023
Background
Malcolm Pitt, who the order says is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees, brought this action against Rockland County; Sergeant Ob Lenis; Sergeant Lowe; Correction Officer Karney; Correction Officer G. Vandunk; Officer Figueroa; and Officer Spencer. The opinion states that the action began on September 29, 2022, and refers to earlier service orders summarizing the case’s procedural history.
The Rockland County Department of Law agreed to accept service for Officer Spencer. The court therefore found that all defendants had been served.
Order
The court ordered the defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint by May 1, 2023. It separately ordered them to respond to the Local Rule 33.2 demands by August 8, 2023.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Pitt’s status allowing him to proceed without prepaying court fees for purposes of an appeal. The court also directed its chambers to mail Pitt a copy of the order.
Effect of the Order
Pitt v. County of Rockland is a procedural order addressing service and deadlines. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the merits of Pitt’s claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.