Swinson v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 20, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-11919·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RANDY SWINSON, Plaintiff, 19 Civ. 11919 (KPF) -v.- ORDER THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of two documents, filed on November 17, 2020 and November 18, 2020, both of which Plaintiff has captioned his Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #33, 35). The documents, both of which appear to have been certified by Plaintiff on November 12, 2020, include new allegations and name new defendants, and omit the allegations made in Plaintiff’s initial Complaint (Dkt. #2). At a July 24, 2020 conference to discuss Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss, with the understanding that Plaintiff wished to bring additional allegations, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by October 30, 2020. The Court subsequently received a letter from Plaintiff, dated September 16, 2020 (Dkt. #26), which, based on its timing and content, the Court understood to be Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. #27). Accordingly, Defendants renewed their application to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. #28), and the Court set a briefing schedule (Dkt. #29). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss and supporting papers on November 9, 2020 (Dkt. #30, 31), and filed an affidavit demonstrating that their briefing and copies of the materials relied upon in their briefing were served upon Plaintiff by mail the same day (Dkt. #32). Plaintiff appears to have disregarded the Court’s directive to file a single

amended complaint by October 30, 2020. Instead, he has made a series of filings in contravention of the Court’s deadline, none of which contains a unitary set of allegations. These pleadings, which are inconsistent both in the defendants named and the allegations made, fail to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “When a complaint does not comply with the requirement that it be short and plain, the court has the power, on its own

initiative or in response to a motion by the defendant, to strike any portions ... or to dismiss the complaint.” Debellis v. White, No. 19 Civ. 8730 (JMF), 2020 WL 5076827, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020) (quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)); see also Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (dismissing complaint where leave to amend had been granted and successive pleadings were “equally prolix and for the most part incomprehensible”). Given the inconsistencies among Plaintiff’s various pleadings, it is unclear to the Court as to what are Plaintiff’s current

allegations, and against whom they are made. As Plaintiff’s pleadings fail to meet the requirements of Rule 8, the Court cannot accept them. However, given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will afford Plaintiff the opportunity to file a proper Complaint. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on or before December 31, 2020. The Court is attaching a blank Complaint form that Plaintiff may use as a template. The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to either submit an Amended Complaint in a timely

manner or to submit a proper amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action. Further, the Court denies Plaintiff’s November 17, 2020 application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot (Dkt. #34), as the Court has previously granted Plaintiff such leave (Dkt. #4). Regrettably, the Court must deny Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss as moot (Dkt. #30), and directs Defendants to inform the Court on or before January 29, 2021, as to whether they wish to file an Answer or move to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by December 31, 2020. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike the purported Amended Complaints (Dkt. #33, 35), and to remove the individual defendants first named in the Amended Complaints from the docket. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s November 17, 2020 application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. (Dkt. #34) The Court DENIES Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss as moot. The

Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 30. Defendants are ORDERED to inform the Court on or before January 29, 2021, as to whether they wish to file an Answer or move to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record. SO ORDERED. pate Norte 1200 cs Pale Fuld KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s).) COMPLAINT -against- under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Prisoner Complaint) Jury Trial: O Yes oO No ee (check one)

(dn the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). Ifyou cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in Part I. Addresses should not be included here.)

I. Parties in this complaint: A. List your name, identification number, and the name and address of your current place of confinement. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Plaintiff Name WF CurrentInstitution Address eee

B. List all defendants’ names, positions, places of employment, and the address where each defendant may be served. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the above caption. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Defendant No. 1 Name □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ‘(i □□ hlShield Where Currently Employed eee Address eee

Rev. 05/2010

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

Swinson v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Swinson v. The City of New York (Swinson v. The City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Wilma Prezzi v. Birg. Gen. L. J. Schelter
469 F.2d 691 (Second Circuit, 1972)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)