Johnson v. Department of Corrections
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-00986
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chad S. Johnson v. Sergeant S. Petrie, Judge Briccetti extended Johnson’s deadline to oppose summary judgment and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
Chad S. Johnson, who was representing himself, received another deadline to respond to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion but was denied permission to appeal this order without prepaying filing fees. Sergeant S. Petrie, Correction Officer D. Allen, and Correction Officer Mason Hamilton received a deadline to file a reply, if any.
What happened
Chad S. Johnson v. Sergeant S. Petrie, Correction Officer D. Allen, and Correction Officer Mason Hamilton concerns defendants’ request for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide the case without a trial. Johnson was representing himself and had not filed a response.
The court extended Johnson’s response deadline to August 21, 2023, and set September 5, 2023, as the deadline for defendants’ reply, if any. The court stated that it would grant no further extensions and would decide the motion after treating it as fully submitted if Johnson did not respond.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. This order did not decide defendants’ summary-judgment motion or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Department of Corrections · No. 7:21-cv-00986
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 24, 2023
Background
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a request asking the court to resolve the case without a trial, on April 24, 2023. They also filed a notice explaining to a self-represented litigant how to oppose summary judgment and provided a certificate stating that defense counsel mailed Johnson the motion and supporting papers. The notice warned that Johnson’s claims could be dismissed without a trial if he did not respond on time.
The court had previously directed Johnson to respond by June 7, 2023. After Johnson did not respond, the court extended the deadline to July 14, 2023, and warned that the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if he did not respond by that date. Johnson still had not filed a response as of this order.
Order
The court extended Johnson’s deadline to respond to the summary-judgment motion to August 21, 2023. It directed defendants to file a reply, if any, by September 5, 2023. The court stated that it would not grant any further extensions and that, if Johnson failed to respond by August 21, it would treat the motion as fully submitted and decide it later.
The order did not grant or deny the summary-judgment motion and did not decide the merits of Johnson’s claims. It addressed only the response schedule and related appeal-fee status.
Appeal-fee ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Johnson permission to pursue an appeal without prepaying the required fees. The court also directed chambers to mail Johnson a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.