Moore v. Jan

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 15, 2024
Docket7:18-cv-11547
StatusUnknown

This text of Moore v. Jan (Moore v. Jan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. Jan, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: JORDAN H. MOORE DATE FILED: 05/15/2024 Plaintiff, -against- 18-CV-11547 (NSR) JHON DAVIS, ERT UNIT OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY JAIL, SGT. ORDER DAVIS, KEITH CAMERA, and SGT. CONKLING, Defendants.

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Jordan H. Moore, proceeding pro se, commenced the instant action on December 10, 2018 against Nurse Jan Gigi; Nurse Jan Veronica; C.C.S. Medical; Sgt. Davis; John Doe Helmet #43; Assistant Warden Keith Camera; Sgt. Conkling #201; and Westchester County. (ECF No. 1.) On December 21, 2018, the Court issued an Order of Service: (1) dismissing claims against Nurse Jan Gigi, Nurse Jan Veronica, and C.C.S. Medical and (2) directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint naming the John Doe defendant. (ECF No. 6.) On February 26, 2019, Service was effectuated on Defendants C.O. Westchester County, Sergeant Davis, Assistant Warden Keith Camera, and Sergeant Conkling (“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 16-19.) On June 25, 2021, after over a year of inactivity in the case, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause due to Plaintiff’s alleged failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 28.) On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff wrote a letter in response to the Court, informing the Court that all his property, including his legal mail, had been lost during transfer to a different correctional facility. (ECF No. 29.) On July 23, 2021, the Court issued a memorandum endorsement advising Plaintiff that the Court would not dismiss the action for want of prosecution and that he should pursue default judgement against Defendants as they had not appeared or otherwise defended the action. (ECF No. 30.) On November 10, 2021 and December 8, 2021, the Court advised Plaintiff on pursuing default judgment against Defendants. (ECF Nos.

33, 35.) On June 16, 2022, after Plaintiff repeatedly failed to move for default judgment, the Court issued a memorandum endorsement warning Plaintiff that the Court will issue a sua sponte dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute if he failed to move for default judgment within 45 days of receipt of copies of the endorsement. (ECF No. 46.) On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendants. (ECF Nos. 47-50.) On August 10, 2022, the Clerk of Court entered a Certificate of Default as to Defendants. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff sent several letters to the Court over the next several months asking about next steps. (ECF Nos. 57-62.) On April 10, 2023, the Court issued a memorandum endorsement

advising Plaintiff on advancing his application for default judgment. (ECF No. 63.) On April 24, 2023, Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 64.) On September 18, 2023, with leave of the Court, Defendants filed a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. (ECF No. 79.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ Motion. A motion to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the district judge. United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221, 1223 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849 (1972); Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. King, 375 F.2d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1967). Default judgments are typically viewed as a “severe sanction.” See Cody v. Mello, 59 F.3d 13, 15 (2d Cir. 1995). Since there is a strong preference in favor of resolving matters on the merits, when ruling on a

motion to vacate a default judgment, the Court must resolve all doubts in favor of the moving party. See N.Y. v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005). A court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1); State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 166 (2d Cir. 2004). With these principles in mind, Defendants’ motion to vacate default judgment is GRANTED. Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated December 21, 2018, Plaintiff is directed to file an Amended Complaint naming the John Doe Defendant on or before June 14, 2024. The Amended Complaint will replace, not supplement, the original Complaint. An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, the Court will screen the Amended Complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named John Doe Defendant and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. Defendants are directed to file an Answer or inform the Court of its intent to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on or before July 5, 2024. If Defendants file a motion

to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, they should do so according to the following briefing schedule: (1) Defendants’ moving papers are to be served (not filed) on July 26, 2024; (2) Plaintiff’s opposition papers are to be served (not filed) on August 26, 2024; and (3) Defendants’ reply papers are to be served on September 16, 2024. All motion papers are to be filed by Defendants, including Plaintiff’s papers, on the reply date, September 16, 2024. The parties are directed to provide Chambers with two physical courtesy copies of their motion papers on the same date they are served on opposing counsel. Defendants are further directed to provide the Court with an electronic courtesy copy of the motion papers as

they are served per this Court’s local emergency civil rules. The Clerk of Court is directed to vacate the Certificate of Default (ECF No. 52), to mail a copy of this Order and the docket sheet to Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF, and to show service on the docket. Dated: May 15, 2024 White Plains, NY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Write the full name of each plaintiff. CV (Include case number if one has been assigned) -against- COMPLAINT Do you want a jury trial? L1Yes LINo

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section Il.

NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

Rev. 1/9/17

I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moore v. Jan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-jan-nysd-2024.