Trotman v. Warden of DOC NYC
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-08455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Trotman v. Warden of DOC NYC, Judge Swain granted amendment motions and deferred the filing-fee decision pending an amended complaint.
David M. Trotman is required to file an amended complaint and, if he seeks to proceed without paying the filing fee, a supporting declaration within 30 days. The Warden of DOC NYC remains the named defendant, but the court did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In David M. Trotman v. Warden of DOC NYC, the court considered Trotman’s request to amend his prisoner complaint and to reconsider the earlier decision allowing him to proceed without paying the filing fee. The earlier court found that Trotman had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown an immediate threat of serious physical injury.
The court ruled that Trotman could file one amended complaint without further permission because the defendants had not been served. It directed him to file that complaint within 30 days and allowed him to submit a written statement connecting his claims to an immediate threat of serious physical injury. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and should include only properly related claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Trotman’s motions for leave to amend and deferred deciding his request to reconsider the filing-fee ruling until reviewing the amended complaint. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order, stating that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Trotman v. Warden of DOC NYC · No. 1:24-cv-08455
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
David M. Trotman filed a prisoner complaint in the Eastern District of New York. That court found that he had accrued at least three prior dismissals qualifying as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee while incarcerated. The court gave him 30 days to pay the fee. Trotman instead filed motions to amend his complaint and to reconsider the decision denying him fee-free status. The action was later transferred to the Southern District of New York.
Amendment and filing-fee issue
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a plaintiff may amend a complaint once without a court order within the applicable period. Because summonses had not issued and the defendants had not been served, the court held that Trotman could file an amended complaint without additional permission. The court also explained that the exception to the three-strikes filing-fee rule depends partly on whether the claims are connected to the danger the plaintiff identifies.
The court therefore deferred deciding Trotman’s request to reconsider the earlier filing-fee ruling until it could review the amended complaint. The court directed Trotman to file it within 30 days. It instructed him to identify what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do, the relevant events and approximate timing and location, his injuries, and the relief he seeks. The court stated that the amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint.
Joining claims
The court instructed Trotman to include only claims that may properly be brought in one lawsuit. It explained that he generally may include all claims against one defendant or claims against different defendants arising from the same incident. Unrelated claims against different defendants generally belong in separate lawsuits.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Trotman’s motions for leave to amend, identified as ECF Nos. 8 and 9, and directed him to file a legible handwritten or typed amended complaint within 30 days. The court also granted him an opportunity to file, within 30 days, a written declaration showing a connection between the amended-complaint claims and an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court deferred the filing-fee reconsideration issue rather than deciding it in this order. If Trotman does not file an amended complaint, the court stated that it will consider whether his motions to alter or amend the judgment provide a basis to reconsider the earlier filing-fee decision. Separately, the court denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order after certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.