McGinnis v. Orange County Jail

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 28, 2022·No. 7:22-cv-03335·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT oe SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WUTC ERONIC 8 iLED men comenncamee sence mean amen X SO. gh fe i JERMAINE MCGINNIS, i pAPR PLLEE ope Plaintiff, Lose □

ORANGE COUNTY; CORRECTION ORDER OFFICER BANDES, Badge #105 or #106; CORRECTION OFFICER M. CARTER, Badge : 22 CV 3335 (VB) #339; CORRECTION OFFICER DONAHOUGH; and CORRECTION OFFICER D. POWEL, ce Daten Coricfisieree OJ LY 22 womens “NTS incent L. Briccettj Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this Section 1983 action against eS Orange County, Correction Officer Bandes, Correction Officer M. Carter, Correction Officer Donahough, and Correction Officer D. Powel. On June 27, 2022, the Court received from plaintiff (i) an objection to the Court’s Order dismissing defendants Orange County Jail and the Walkhill Police Department and directing the other defendants be served (Doc. #13); (ii) a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #14); (iii) a motion for discovery (Doc. #14); (iv) a request to amend his complaint to add a new defendant (Doc. #15); (v) and an additional exhibit to support his case. (Doc, #16). Each submission is addressed in turn. I. Objection Plaintiff objects to the Court’s Order (Doc. #10) dismissing defendants Orange County Jail and the Walkhill Police Department and directing the individual defendants be served with process. The Court construes plaintiffs objection as a motion for reconsideration, which is DENIED. First, the Court did not close plaintiff’s case or dismiss any claims against Orange County or any individual officers. The Court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Orange County, Correction Officer Bandes, Correction Officer M. Carter, Correction Officer Donahough, and Correction Officer D. Powel with summonses and plaintiffs complaint. Second, to the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision to dismiss Orange County Jail and the Walkhill Police Department, the motion is denied.

“To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 154 F. Supp. 2d 696, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Doe v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)). Such a motion should be granted only when the Court has overlooked facts or precedent that might have altered the conclusion reached in the earlier decision. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Local Civil Rule 6.3. The movant’s burden is weighty to avoid “wasteful repetition of arguments already briefed, considered and decided.” Weissman v. Fruchtman, 124 F.R.D. 559, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). The Court dismissed (i) Walkhill Police Department because local police departments cannot be sued under New York law and (ii) Orange County Jail because local jails cannot be sued for constitutional violations under federal law. (Doc. #10, at 2-3). Plaintiff does not point to any facts or cases that would alter the Court’s conclusions. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration must be denied. II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal. The Court has considered the type and complexity of this case, the merits of plaintiff's claims, and plaintiff's ability to present the case. The Court, in its discretion, does not find exceptional circumstances in plaintiff's case warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Accordingly, plaintiff's request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for renewal at an appropriate time in the future. I. Motion for Discovery Plaintiff requests defendants turn over certain video recordings. Plaintiff's request is DENIED. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the parties in a civil case “must confer as soon as practicable” about, among other things, the discovery process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). “A party may not seek discovery from any source before” this conference, except when authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, agreement of the parties, or court order. Id. r. 26(d)(1). In determining whether to permit a plaintiff to seek discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, courts have considered “the specificity” of the plaintiff’s discovery requests, and “the need for” the requested discovery. Cf. Arista Recs., LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010).

Here, the Court will not, at this stage of the case, direct defendants to turn over certain materials. Plaintiff has not established the need for discovery at this stage of the case, that is, before defendants have been served with the complaint or appeared in the case. According, plaintiff’s motion is denied. IV. Request to Amend and Additional Exhibit Plaintiff requests to amend his complaint to add a new defendant and also submits an additional exhibit to support his case.! Plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of right at this stage of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff shall file his amended complaint, together with any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider, by July 28, 2022. An amended complaint form is attached to this order. The amended complaint will completely replace the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff must include in the amended complaint all information necessary for his claims. Accordingly, plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint is granted. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's motion for discovery is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his complaint is GRANTED. 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 instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #14). The Clerk is further instructed to place under seal Document #16. Document #16 should be viewable only by parties to this case.

The additional exhibit includes plaintiff's birthdate and other sensitive information, and it shall be placed under seal in accordance with Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. Dated: June 28, 2022 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED:

Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

ee eee eee ooo eae Oem")

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

McGinnis v. Orange County Jail, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

McGinnis v. Orange County Jail (McGinnis v. Orange County Jail) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3
604 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Bruce C. Shrader v. Csx Transportation, Inc.
70 F.3d 255 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Weissman v. Fruchtman
124 F.R.D. 559 (S.D. New York, 1989)