Brinson v. Doe

S.D. New York

Brinson v. Doe

DecidedJanuary 17, 2020

Docket7:18-cv-07626

StatusUnknown

This text of Brinson v. Doe (Brinson v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinson v. Doe, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT tpoe ey Brinson v. Curtin, et. al., Ue □ □□ O! 18 CV 7626 (VB) In the attached letter, received on January 15, 2020, plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a “Motion to Dismiss Defendant(s) Summary Judgment Motion.” (Doc. #48). To the extent plaintiff asks the Court to deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment without the parties fully briefing the defendants’ motion, that application is DENIED. A party seeking to oppose a motion for summary judgment may do so by filing an opposition. See Local Civil Rule 6.1. On January 15, 2020, the Court received plaintiff's opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #47). Moreover, plaintiffs ‘Motion to Dismiss” provides two bases to deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the first of which is already addressed in plaintiff’s opposition brief—whether plaintiff properly exhausted administrative remedies or was excused from the exhaustion requirement—and the second—“|t]he original has no tittle [sic] at the top of the Page and the complaint to the superintendent has the superintendent at the top of the page”—is of no moment. (Doc. #48). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion must be denied. (Doc. #48). Defendants’ reply, if any, is due January 29, 2020 (Doc. #46), at which time, the Court will deem the motion fully submitted. To be clear, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is still pending. It will be decided in due course after defendants file their reply. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962), The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket and terminate plaintiff's motion. (Doc. #48). Dated: January 17, 2020 White Plains, NY SO

Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

Case 7:18-cv-07626-VB) Document 48 Filed 01/15/20 Page1oft1

L, Brinson Jr: . lomdi . , Th18 -cv~07626 owe Bringow V, Doe et al Cuctin ) 6.0: Heimo Defender . . ferdarts) | Vincent ob Brice Judge Vincent L, Briccetti

Bo Motion to Dismiss DefendanS) =~, Sumwor Sud Mert Motion q So

ND = OO

Pro Se. Plainkif C Contest Defendant(s) thed the Original Crewance to the

evance. of Cine Loos not Submitted of Of dime,

as Lhe Couck and ™y self has these

12%, @Tre original has we Vitle oat Lhe top of the

and \Vo Complarnt to the superimbencent has the

intendent at Whe top of the page . Respectfully Scomithedl

Kevin Brin sep) 6207 Almeda Ave Arverne wy. a7 □□□□ 2Y9. ag. Ore,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT tpoe ey Brinson v. Curtin, et. al., Ue □ □□ O! 18 CV 7626 (VB) In the attached letter, received on January 15, 2020, plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a “Motion to Dismiss Defendant(s) Summary Judgment Motion.” (Doc. #48). To the extent plaintiff asks the Court to deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment without the parties fully briefing the defendants’ motion, that application is DENIED. A party seeking to oppose a motion for summary judgment may do so by filing an opposition. See Local Civil Rule 6.1. On January 15, 2020, the Court received plaintiff's opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #47). Moreover, plaintiffs ‘Motion to Dismiss” provides two bases to deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the first of which is already addressed in plaintiff’s opposition brief—whether plaintiff properly exhausted administrative remedies or was excused from the exhaustion requirement—and the second—“|t]he original has no tittle [sic] at the top of the Page and the complaint to the superintendent has the superintendent at the top of the page”—is of no moment. (Doc. #48). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion must be denied. (Doc. #48). Defendants’ reply, if any, is due January 29, 2020 (Doc. #46), at which time, the Court will deem the motion fully submitted. To be clear, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is still pending. It will be decided in due course after defendants file their reply. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962), The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket and terminate plaintiff's motion. (Doc. #48). Dated: January 17, 2020 White Plains, NY SO