Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 1, 2023

Houston v. Capra

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-02135
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Houston v. Henton, Judge Briccetti extended defense counsel’s settlement-update deadline and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.

Who this affects

The parties’ settlement-related schedule was affected, with defense counsel receiving additional time to submit the required joint letter. The plaintiff was also affected by the denial of appeal-related in forma pauperis status.

What happened

In Houston v. Henton, the court had previously extended discovery and entered a revised schedule requiring defense counsel to submit a joint letter about settlement discussions by May 31, 2023.

Because defense counsel had not submitted the letter by that date, the court extended the deadline to June 29, 2023.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court costs for that appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Houston v. Capra · No. 7:20-cv-02135
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
June 1, 2023

Background

On February 23, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ request for an extension of discovery and entered a Third Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. That schedule required defense counsel to submit a joint letter by May 31, 2023, reporting on the parties’ settlement discussions and stating whether the court could assist with settlement.

Ruling

The court stated that defense counsel had not submitted the required letter. It therefore extended the deadline for submitting the joint settlement-status letter to June 29, 2023.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It consequently denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to pursue an appeal without the usual prepayment requirements—for purposes of an appeal. The order also directed chambers to mail a copy to the plaintiff at the address on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.