Segal v. New York Military Academy

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT tose SRS SS SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC SN‘ GILBERT SEGAL JR., || BLECEROMECALLY TLE) Plaintiff, □□ nate □□□ | V. : . Ulnar tmesncty vee ST OEE ANT □□ ears ome

NEW YORK MILITARY ACADEMY (ALL ENTITIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT : LIMITED TO INSURANCE REPRESENTATIVES, ETC); THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ORDER INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS; RESEARCH CENTER ON NATURAL CONSERVATION 21 CV 6872 (VB) ye INC.; ASSOCIATION OF MILITARY b / 7 / Dt COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS OF THE yeh □□□□□□ UNITED STATES; JROTC ARMY; NEW (isi) ee nk p. Brie YORK DEPT. OF EDUCATION; SUN FIN Ne YN HOLDINGS; and MIDDLE STATES cyan ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND ™ SCHOOLS, Defendants. : en er ee eee nn een serene esse On April 22, 2022, defendants New York Military Academy and Research Center on Natural Conservation Inc. (together, the “NYMA Defendants”), moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. (Doc. #30). On June 3, 2022, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his opposition to the NYMA Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docs. ##32, 33), but also moved for leave to amend the second amended complaint. (Doc. #34). Also on June 3, plaintiff moved to extend his time to serve defendants Association of Military Colleges and Schools of the United States, JROTC Army, the National Association of Independent Schools, New York Dept. of Education, Sun Fin Holdings, and Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (the “Unserved Defendants”) with the summons and second amended complaint (Doc. #35). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint is GRANTED. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects unless amendment would be futile. See Hill vy. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 1988). Because plaintiff seeks to amend to allege additional facts relevant to his claims, the Court grants plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff shall file the third amended complaint by July 7, 2022. Within 21 days of such amendment, the NYMA Defendants may either file an answer to the third amended complaint, or file a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

The NYMA Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s application for an extension of time to serve the Unserved Defendants is also GRANTED. Plaintiff’s time to serve the Unserved Defendants is extended until sixty days after plaintiff files the third amended complaint. The Clerk shall terminate the motions. (Docs. ##30, 34, 35). Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. Dated: June 7, 2022 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED Reve .

Vincent L, Briccetti United States District Judge