Johnson v. Department of Corrections
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-00986
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Department of Corrections, Judge Briccetti deemed defendants’ unopposed summary-judgment motion submitted and denied Johnson fee-free status for an appeal.
Chad S. Johnson and the defendants—Sergeant S. Petrie, Correction Officer D. Allen, and Correction Officer Mason Hamilton—were affected. The summary-judgment motion remains to be decided, and Johnson was denied permission to appeal without paying court fees from this order.
What happened
In Johnson v. Department of Corrections, the defendants asked the court to grant summary judgment, which could end the case without a trial. Chad S. Johnson was representing himself and did not respond to the motion, despite receiving notice and several deadline extensions.
The court deemed the motion fully submitted and unopposed. It stated that it would decide the motion later; this order did not decide whether summary judgment should be granted or denied.
Judge Briccetti also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to appeal without paying court fees. The court directed its chambers to mail Johnson a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Department of Corrections · No. 7:21-cv-00986
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 5, 2023
Background
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on April 24, 2023. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding claims without a trial when the governing rules permit judgment based on the record. The defendants also filed a notice warning Johnson, who was proceeding without a lawyer, that his claims could be dismissed if he did not respond on time. The defendants stated that they served Johnson with the motion and supporting papers by first-class mail.
The court had originally directed Johnson to respond by June 7,
- After Johnson did not respond, the court extended the deadline to July 14 and then to August
- The court warned that no further extensions would be granted and that the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if Johnson did not respond by August
- Johnson still had not responded as of the date of this order.
Ruling
The court deemed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion fully submitted and unopposed. The order states that the court would decide the motion in due course; it does not state whether the motion was ultimately granted or denied.
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 Johnson permission to appeal without paying court fees. Chambers was directed to mail Johnson a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it sets the summary-judgment motion for decision and addresses appeal-related fee status without deciding the underlying claims or the summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.