Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Myers v. Doe

January 10, 2006

MICHAEL MYERS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JANE DOE, CORRECTIONS OFFICER AT FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JANE DOE, CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT AT FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; AND GLENN S. GOORD, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Myers commenced this action on March 12, 2004. See Dkt. No. 1. By Order dated April 7, 2004, this Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint because he had failed to sign his original complaint and because he had failed to identify any Defendant by name. See Dkt. No. 6. In compliance with that Order, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint on April 16, 2004. See Dkt. No. 7. In that amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged wrongdoing against the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections ("DOCS") and two Jane Doe Defendants arising from an incident that occurred at Franklin Correctional Facility ("Franklin"). See id. By Order dated June 14, 2004, the Court approved Plaintiff's amended complaint for filing and directed the Clerk of the Court to substitute Commissioner Goord as a named Defendant. See Dkt. No. 9.

On August 26, 2004, Defendant Goord moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Dkt. No. 21. On October 29, 2004, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend his amended complaint to add additional allegations of abuse and to identify the individuals whom he had previously sued as Jane Doe Defendants. See Dkt. No. 33.

By Order dated April 29, 2005, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to amend. See Dkt. No. 52. Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his amended complaint to the extent that he seeks to identify the Doe Defendants by name, to clarify his claims against Defendant Goord, and to include those allegations against Defendant Goord that he asserts in his Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant Goord's Motion to Dismiss and in his Objections to Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 52 at 10.

The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend, however, "to the extent that he seeks to add allegations regarding incidents that occurred at DOCS facilities other than Franklin and additional DOCS employees at those facilities." See id. In that same Order, the Court also denied Defendant Goord's motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to refile upon his receipt and review of Plaintiff's second amended complaint. See id. By Order filed on May 18, 2005, the Court instructed Plaintiff that, in order for the approved amendments to become operative, he must submit to the Court and serve upon Defendant Goord a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of the filing of that Order. See Dkt. No. 53.

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motions (1) to amend, (2) for injunctive relief, (3) for appointment of a mediator, and (4) to enforce discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 56-57, 60, 63. Defendant Goord filed papers in opposition to the last three of these motions. See Dkt. Nos. 59, 62, 64.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint

In its May 18, 2005 Order, the Court instructed Plaintiff to submit a proposed second amended complaint for the Court's review. In his proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiff was to substitute named Defendants for the Jane Doe Defendants and to include additional allegations against Defendant Goord. See Dkt. No. 53. Rather than submitting a proposed second amended complaint in compliance with the May 18, 2005 Order, Plaintiff submitted a motion to amend his amended complaint. It appears that Plaintiff submitted his proposed second amended complaint in the form of a motion because he was seeking to add three additional Defendants whom the Court had not previously considered. Thus, the Court will review Plaintiff's motion to amend.

In his proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to substitute Defendants "Officer McCarther" and "Sergeant M. Wilson" in place of the two previously unidentified "Jane Doe" Defendants and to include additional allegations against Defendant Goord. He also seeks to name three additional Defendants -- Lt. Travers, G. Castine, and A. Secore -- all of whom were employees at Franklin and to assert allegations of wrongdoing against them, claiming that, among other things, they harassed and physically assaulted him, denied him medical care in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, issued false misbehavior reports against him, and destroyed his property. See, generally, Dkt. No. 56, Proposed Amended Complaint.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally governs a motion to amend a complaint. See Chowdhury v. Haveli Restaurant, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 8627, 2005 WL 1037416, *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2005). However, "'[w]here the proposed amendment seeks to add new defendants, . . ., Rule 21 governs.'" Id. (quoting Randolph-Rand Corp. of New York v. Tidy Handbags, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 1829, 2001 WL 1286989, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2001)). Rule 21 provides, in pertinent part, that "a party may be added to an action 'at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.'" Id. (quotation omitted). Finally, "[i]n deciding whether a party may be added under this rule, a court is guided by 'the same standard of liberality afforded to motions to amend pleadings under Rule 15.'" Id. (quoting Soler v. G & U, Inc., 86 F.R.D. 524, 527-28 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)) (other citation omitted).*fn1

Based upon its review of the entire file and because the proposed amended pleading, in which Plaintiff seeks to add as Defendants only individuals who were employed at Franklin, is not inconsistent with the Court's April 29, 2005 Order, the Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.