DiDonna v. Smith
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-06107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DiDonna v. Smith, Judge Karas ordered a new complaint by February 28, 2025, or the case may be dismissed.
Louis Andrew DiDonna, who must file a complete third amended complaint by February 28, 2025; Harold L. Smith and the other defendants remain parties to the action unless the Court later orders otherwise.
What happened
In DiDonna v. Smith, Louis Andrew DiDonna brought a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law against Harold L. Smith and others, including unidentified defendants.
The court had previously ordered DiDonna to file a second amended complaint identifying the unidentified defendants, but he did not meet the deadline. His later letters did not include all defendants, facts, and claims required in one complaint.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered DiDonna to file a complete third amended complaint by February 28, 2025. The court warned that failing to meet that deadline may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, but it did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- DiDonna v. Smith · No. 7:22-cv-06107
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
Louis Andrew DiDonna commenced this action on July 18, 2022, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. After DiDonna filed an amended complaint, the Court ordered service. Because the case named several John and Jane Doe defendants, the Court directed DiDonna to file a second amended complaint within 30 days after receiving information identifying those defendants.
On October 4, 2024, the Court again ordered DiDonna to file the second amended complaint by November 4, 2024. He did not timely comply. On December 5, 2024, the Court ordered him to explain by January 3, 2025, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. DiDonna requested an extension and later filed three letters identifying Doe defendants and repeating his allegations.
Court’s Analysis
The Court had previously warned that the second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original and amended complaints. Although DiDonna’s January 17, 2025 letters were styled as a second amended complaint, they did not include all defendants. In light of the assistance generally given to people representing themselves, the Court gave DiDonna another opportunity to submit a complete pleading using the Southern District of New York’s pro se complaint form.
Order
The Court ordered DiDonna to file a third amended complaint by February 28, 2025. The complaint must include all factual allegations, defendants, and claims he wished to assert. The third amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The Court warned that failure to meet the deadline may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to mail DiDonna the order and the complaint form.
This order did not decide whether DiDonna’s constitutional claims were legally valid or whether the defendants were liable. It set a filing deadline and warned of a possible future dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.