Davis v. City of Mount Vernon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OURS SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SOUP GALLY WLS | nn enema neem nnnnn mmnmnnen naneene pC SONIA B. DAVIS, : coweneine: (4 □ mn □□

CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, MOUNT : □□ VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE — : ORDER — □ OFFICER DERVIN CHERY, POLICE _—— — 3 OFFICER EDUARDO BAERGA, POLICE □□ 3S OFFICER TIMOTHY W. BRILEY, DARIUS 17 CV 8029 (VB) M. MITCHELL, POLICE OFFICER ROBERT : Tae F. KRESSMAN, SERGEANT MICHAEL \s ° MARCUCULLI, and POLICE OFFICERS □□ 8 JOHN & JANE DOE, □□ Defendants. OG A a tt a tN At the August 29, 2019, case management conference, the Court gave plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, a copy of the Motions Guide for pro se litigants. (See Doc. #42). The Motions Guide instructs pro se litigants to send motion papers to the Pro Se Intake Unit for processing. On October 29, 2019, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #47). Defendants’ proof of service indicates plaintiff was served with the motion by mail on October 30, 2019. (Doc. #53 at 1). Accordingly, plaintiffs opposition to the motion was due November 18, 2019. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Local Civil Rule 6.1(b). On December 10, 2019, the Court received a mailing from plaintiff containing the following: (i) a document dated November 21, 2019, and labeled a “Notice of Motion,” in which plaintiff requests a judgment against defendants for payment of unspecified medical costs; (ii) an undated letter; and (iii) a collection of medical bills, original prescription labels, and original receipts. Plaintiff's mailing completely fails to comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, SDNY Local Civil Rule 56.1, and the instructions in the Court’s Motions Guide for pro se litigants. Accordingly, the Court will return to plaintiff her mailing.

In view of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court sua sponte extends to January 10, 2020, plaintiffs time to oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion. If plaintiff fails to respond to the motion by January 10, 2020, the Court will deem the motion fully submitted.! To the extent plaintiff’s submission seeks any further relief, such request is DENIED. In addition, plaintiff improperly addressed this mailing to Judge Briccetti’s Chambers. Plaintiff is instructed to address all future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit at the following address: United States District Court Pro Se Intake Unit 300 Quarropas St. White Plains, NY 10601 The Court may disregard any future submissions sent directly to chambers. 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). Chambers will mail a copy of this Order, as well a copy of the Motions Guide, to plaintiff at the address at the docket. Dated: December 11, 2019 White Plains, NY p> Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

As stated in its September 3, 2019, Order, the Court construes plaintiff's August 30, 2019, filings (Doc. ##43-45) as opposing defendants’ then-anticipated motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. #46).