Carrasco v. Griffin

Opinion

USDC SD. wom a aed He ga arectan fo UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eects. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK por Co JOSE CARRASCO, os | 3-2° i Plaintiff, : ORDER V. — ANTHONY ANNUCCTI, Acting Commissioner, : 17 CV 9643 (VB) and THOMAS GRIFFIN, Superintendent, : Defendants. : tt kt a On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. #57). Plaintiff's opposition to the motion was thus due December 23, 2019. See Local Rule 6.1(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). To date, plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion or seek an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 1, The Court sua sponte extends plaintiffs time to oppose the motion to February 3, 2020. Defendants’ reply, if any, is due February 10, 2020. 2. If plaintiff fails to respond to the motion by February 3, 2020, the motion will be deemed fully submitted and unopposed. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. 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 purposes of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Dated: January 3, 2020 . White Plains, NY Vind | lr Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge