Bernier v. Carter

District Court, N.D. New York·Decided October 3, 2023·No. 9:17-cv-01376·Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court Northern District of New York JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

MANFRED BERNIER, Plaintiff, V. CASE NUMBER: 9:17-CV-1376 (LEK/ATB) THOMAS CARTER,

Defendant. [x] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that this action is dismissed pursuant to the October 3, 2023 Text Order of Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn which ORDERED that The Court has received Plaintiff's second motion to substitute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a). Dkt. No. 95 ("Substitution Motion"). Plaintiff previously submitted a letter motion seeking substitution on May 22, 2023. Dkt. No. 91. On May 25, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended motion including, inter alia, a "supporting affidavit... to establish and provide factual and procedural background relevant to the motion." Dkt. No. 92 (quoting Local Rule 7.1(b)). Plaintiff has included no such affidavit. Furthermore, the Court instructed Plaintiff to serve the Substitution Motion on the proposed successor-defendant and to file proof of such service with the Court. See id. Plaintiff has not filed any such proof. Finally, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file his Substitution Motion by September 26, 2023, or else risk dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See id. Plaintiff missed this deadline and filed his Substitution Motion by September 28, 2023, despite the Court's admonition that it would "grant no additional motions for an extension, barring extraordinary circumstances." Id. Plaintiff has not cited any such circumstances in his Substitution Motion. And, although Plaintiff's Substitution Motion is dated September 24, 2023, see Substitution Motion at 1, papers that are mailed by non-inmates are only considered to be "filed upon the clerk's receipt of those papers," and "filings reaching the clerk's office after a deadline are untimely, even if they are mailed before the deadline." Galage v. Colvin, No. 15-CV-3305, 2015 WL 9684602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015) (quoting Crawford-Mulley v. Corning Inc., 77 F. Supp.2d 366, 368 (W.D.N.Y.1999)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 15-CV-3305, 2016 WL 94253 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2016). While pro se litigants are entitled to deference, this represents the sixth time that Plaintiff has missed a deadline in relation to his Substitution Motion- even after four extensions, most of which were granted nunc pro tunc. See Dkt. No. 85 (letter motion filed August 5, 2022, despite July 21 deadline that was extended to August 3); Dkt. No. 87 (letter motion filed November 14, 2022, despite November 8 deadline); Dkt. No. 89 (letter motion filed February 14, 2023, despite February 13 deadline); Dkt. No. 91 (letter motion filed May 22, 2023, despite May 18 deadline); Dkt. No. 93 (letter motion filed July 27, 2023, despite July 24 deadline). This action is therefore dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(a) and 41(b). Furthermore, because this Section 1983 action concerns events which took place in 2015, the statute of limitations has long expired, and so this action is dismissed with prejudice. See Kane v. Mt. Pleasant C. Sch. Dist., 80 F.4th 101, 108 (2d Cir. 2023) ("[l]n New York, the statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims is New York's general statute of limitations for personal injury actions, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5), which is three years.").

October 3, 2023 . DATE A. TZ ts f Pony Clerk of Court per cae

s/Nancy A. Steves (BY) DEPUTY CLERK

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

Bernier v. Carter, (N.D.N.Y. 2023).

Bernier v. Carter (Bernier v. Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crawford-Mulley v. CORNING INC.
77 F. Supp. 2d 366 (W.D. New York, 1999)