Rivera v. Town of New Fairfield
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-01874
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rivera v. Town of New Fairfield, Judge Briccetti terminated earlier dismissal motions as moot and set deadlines for responding to newer motions.
Rivera and the defendants named in the case were affected: the earlier motions to dismiss the second amended complaint were terminated as moot, and Rivera and both defendant groups received deadlines concerning the newer motions to dismiss the third amended complaint.
What happened
In Rivera v. Town of New Fairfield, the defendants filed motions asking the court to dismiss Rivera’s second amended complaint. Rivera, who was representing himself, later filed a third amended complaint.
Because the defendants then filed new motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, the court terminated the earlier motions as moot. The court ordered Rivera to file one response to both new motions by May 19, 2023, and allowed defendants to file replies by May 26, 2023.
Judge Briccetti also denied Rivera permission to appeal without paying filing fees, certifying that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether the third amended complaint stated a valid claim.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Town of New Fairfield · No. 7:22-cv-01874
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 1, 2023
Background
The New Fairfield Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Humberto Rivera, Jr.’s second amended complaint on February 6, 2023. The Connecticut State Trooper Defendants filed a similar motion on March 24, 2023. On April 7, 2023, Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a third amended complaint.
Order
After the third amended complaint was filed, both defendant groups moved to dismiss that newer complaint. The court terminated as moot the earlier motions directed at the second amended complaint. “Moot” means that the court treated those motions as no longer requiring a ruling because the pleading they challenged had been replaced.
The court directed Rivera to file a single opposition to both motions to dismiss the third amended complaint by May 19, 2023. It permitted defendants to file replies by May 26, 2023. The order did not rule on the merits of the claims or decide whether the third amended complaint should be dismissed.
Appeal-Filing-Fee Determination
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 therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the docket entries for the earlier motions to dismiss, Docs. 54 and 64.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.