Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-08173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Judge Preska entered an order on plaintiffs’ request to extend their fees deadline.
The plaintiffs’ deadline to seek attorney’s fees and costs, as well as the parties’ and court’s scheduling of that application, was at issue.
What happened
In Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the plaintiffs asked for more time to file an application for attorney’s fees and litigation costs. They asked to file it within 14 days after the court ruled on the trial on the merits.
The plaintiffs said the court’s preliminary-injunction opinion had made multiple findings of constitutional violations and argued that they were entitled to fees and costs under federal law. They also said the Prison Litigation Reform Act required a permanent-injunction hearing in early August. If they did not obtain a permanent injunction, they proposed filing an application based on the class-certification proceedings and the preliminary-injunction merits findings.
Judge Loretta A. Preska entered a “SO ORDERED” notation dated June 20, 2023. The provided text does not clearly state whether the requested extension was granted, denied, or modified.
The detailed version
- Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:19-cv-08173
- Loretta Preska
- June 20, 2023
Request
The plaintiffs requested an extension of the deadline to file an application for attorney’s fees and litigation costs. They asked to file the application within 14 days after the court ruled on the trial on the merits. The letter stated that this timing would allow the plaintiffs to file one fees-and-costs application and accommodate the parties’ and the court’s schedules.
Plaintiffs’ stated grounds
The plaintiffs asserted that the court had made multiple findings of constitutional violations in its preliminary-injunction opinion and that they were therefore entitled to fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. They also stated that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required a permanent-injunction hearing in early August. The plaintiffs proposed an alternative: if they did not obtain a permanent injunction, they would file an application for fees and costs related to class certification and based on the merits findings in the preliminary injunction within 14 days of the court’s determination.
Court’s action
The document contains a “SO ORDERED” notation dated June 20, 2023, signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska. In the provided text, the specific terms of the court’s ruling are not legible or otherwise stated. Accordingly, the text does not establish whether the extension was granted, denied, or modified.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.