Davis v. City of Mount Vernon

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 17, 2020
• Docket: 7:17-cv-08029
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK onan nent nene □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ os ICAL? SONIA B. DAVIS, °K ELEDD □□ : Sh] [77] 20

CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, MOUNT : VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE —: ORDER OFFICER DERVIN CHERY, POLICE -e————— OFFICER EDUARDO BAERGA, POLICE OFFICER TIMOTHY W. BRILEY, POLICE : 17 CV 8029 (VB) OFFICER DARIUS M. MITCHELL, POLICE — : OFFICER ROBERT F. KRESSMAN, : SERGEANT MICHAEL MARCUCULLI, and — : POLICE OFFICERS JOHN & JANE DOE, Defendants. : eet ee ee te Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action against defendants the City of Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon Police Department, Police Officer (“P.O.”) Dervin Chery, P.O. Eduardo Baerga, P.O. Timothy W. Briley, P.O. Darius M. Mitchell, P.O. Robert F, Kressman, Sergeant Michael Marcuculli, and P.Os. John and Jane Doe. On August 30, 2019, the Court the following submissions from plaintiff: (i) an undated letter, to which plaintiff attached evidence in support of her claims (Doc. #43); (ii) a document styled “Notice of Motion,” in which plaintiff asks the Court “to address” plaintiff's injuries, and to which plaintiff attached medical records offered in support of her claims (Doc. #45); and (iii) a letter dated August 30, 2019, in which plaintiff asks the Court about the circumstances of her alleged injuries (Doc. #44), By Order dated September 3, 2019, the Court liberally construed plaintiffs above- referenced filings as opposing defendants’ anticipated motion for summary judgment, which, at that time, had not yet been filed. (Doc. #46). 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, any further opposition to the motion was due November 18, 2019. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Local Civil Rule 6.1(b). Plaintiff did not timely file an additional opposition to defendants’ motion or seek an extension of time to do so.

On December 11, 2019, in view of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court sua sponte extended to January 10, 2020, plaintiff's time to file an additional opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. (Doc. #54). On December 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a document styled “Notice of Motion,” in which plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment against defendants with respect to certain medical costs. (Doc. #55). The Court construes plaintiffs motion filing also as an additional response to defendants’ motion. (Id.). Accordingly, the Court deems defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #47) and plaintiff's motions (Docs. ## 45, 55) as fully submitted, and will decide the motions in due course. The Court certifies under 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. Dated: January 17, 2020 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: (5 — Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge