Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 15, 2025

Amelio v. Houri

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:22-cv-00975
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Amelio v. Houri, Judge Lehrburger denied Plaintiffs’ request for more time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, leaving the Third Amended Complaint operative.

Who this affects

The pro se plaintiffs, including Carmine P. Amelio, must proceed with the Third Amended Complaint because the court denied more time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.

What happened

In Amelio v. Houri, the plaintiffs asked for another extension to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. They had first sought to file it in September 2023 and had received several extensions and deadlines.

The court said the plaintiffs had had sufficient time to revise the complaint and exclude claims previously identified as legally futile. It also noted the plaintiffs’ repeated requests for extensions and filing delays.

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the request for a further extension. The Third Amended Complaint remains the operative complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Amelio v. Houri · No. 1:22-cv-00975
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
May 15, 2025

Background

This order addresses the plaintiffs’ request at Docket 128 for more time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs first sought to file that complaint on September 22, 2023.

On April 4, 2024, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Legal Aid Society defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that the plaintiffs’ request to file a Fourth Amended Complaint be granted in part, subject to removing claims that were futile on their face. On September 13, 2024, the District Judge adopted the report and recommendation in full and gave the plaintiffs until October 4, 2024, to file the complaint. After additional proceedings, the deadline was extended to November 1, 2024, and then to May 13, 2025.

The plaintiffs also filed motions for reconsideration and recusal, both of which were denied in mid-April 2025. The court stated that the plaintiffs had sought to file the Fourth Amended Complaint since September 2023 and had had sufficient time since September 13, 2024, to revise it as required.

Court’s Reasoning

The court characterized the request for still more time as another instance of the plaintiffs seeking multiple extensions and waiting until filing deadlines to request additional time. The court said it had accommodated medical and personal reasons for extensions when the requests were reasonable. It also noted that Carmine Amelio had previously been determined to be a vexatious litigant in a prior related proceeding.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a further extension of the deadline to file the Fourth Amended Complaint. The court stated that the Third Amended Complaint remains the operative complaint. This order concerned the filing deadline and did not decide the merits of the claims in the complaint.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.