Walker v. Capra
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-07638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Walker v. Capra, Judge Briccetti extended Walker’s deadline to oppose defendants’ dismissal motion and denied fee-free appeal status.
JERARD WALKER, the self-represented plaintiff, and the defendants, including MICHAEL CAPRA, were affected by the response deadlines and appeal-related ruling.
What happened
In Walker v. Capra, defendants asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint under a federal rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legal claim. Walker, who was representing himself, had received the motion but did not file a response by the June 13 deadline.
The court extended Walker’s response deadline to July 20, 2023. Defendants’ reply, if any, was due July 31, 2023. The court said the dismissal motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if Walker did not respond by July 20.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Walker permission to appeal without paying fees. The order did not decide the pending dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Walker v. Capra · No. 7:22-cv-07638
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 20, 2023
Background
Defendants moved on May 30, 2023, to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule allows a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Defendants served Walker with the motion and supporting papers by regular mail. The opinion states that Walker was proceeding without a lawyer.
Walker’s deadline to oppose the motion was June 13, 2023. The order states that Walker had not filed any opposition by the date of the order.
Court’s Order
The court extended Walker’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss to July 20, 2023. Defendants’ reply, if any, was due July 31, 2023. If Walker failed to respond by July 20, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed.
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 therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The court did not rule on whether the amended complaint should be dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.