Rodriguez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-05265
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Rodriguez v. Westchester County, Judge Román granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s claims without prejudice.
Kevin Rodriguez’s federal civil-rights claims and state-law negligence claim were dismissed without prejudice. Westchester County and Officer Bravado obtained dismissal of the claims, subject to Rodriguez’s opportunity to file a Third Amended Complaint.
What happened
In Kevin Rodriguez v. Westchester County and Officer Bravado, Rodriguez, who represented himself, claimed that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment through excessive force and inadequate medical care. He also appeared to bring a state-law negligence claim.
The court said Rodriguez’s Second Amended Complaint added no new facts supporting his civil-rights claims. Because the court had already dismissed those claims in two earlier rounds of the case, it followed its earlier decisions and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims. After dismissing the claims based on federal law, the court declined to decide the negligence claim under its supplemental jurisdiction.
Judge Nelson S. Román granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims without prejudice and allowed Rodriguez to file a Third Amended Complaint by August 15, 2025. The court stated that any new complaint must include new factual allegations; otherwise, the claims would be dismissed with prejudice. If Rodriguez did not file on time, the dismissed claims would also be deemed dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections · No. 7:23-cv-05265
- Nelson Roman
- July 15, 2025
Background
Kevin Rodriguez, who represented himself, sued Westchester County and Correction Officer Bravado under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against persons acting under state authority for violating constitutional rights. Rodriguez alleged Eighth Amendment violations based on excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs. His Second Amended Complaint also appeared to assert a state-law negligence claim.
The court had previously dismissed Rodriguez’s original Complaint and First Amended Complaint in their entirety, while allowing him to amend each time. Rodriguez filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 30, 2025. The defendants moved to dismiss it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not contain enough factual matter to plausibly support a legal claim. Rodriguez did not oppose the motion.
Eighth Amendment and Section 1983 Claims
The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally calls for a court to follow its earlier decisions in the same case unless there is a compelling reason to change them. The court had already dismissed Rodriguez’s Eighth Amendment claims in its October 3, 2024 and April 7, 2025 orders.
The court found that the Second Amended Complaint offered no new allegations supporting those claims. It therefore concluded that Rodriguez had not plausibly alleged a basis for relief and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims without prejudice.
State-Law Negligence Claim
The court determined that the Section 1983 claims were the only claims supporting its original federal jurisdiction. After dismissing those claims, the court exercised its discretion not to decide Rodriguez’s state-law negligence claim under supplemental jurisdiction. The negligence claim was dismissed without prejudice to recommencing it in state court.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s Section 1983 claims and negligence claim without prejudice. It gave Rodriguez permission to file a Third Amended Complaint by August 15, 2025. The new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the Second Amended Complaint, and any claims Rodriguez wished to pursue had to be included in or attached to it.
The court stated that the Third Amended Complaint must contain new factual allegations not already included in the Second Amended Complaint. If Rodriguez did not file a Third Amended Complaint by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. If he filed one, the defendants were directed to answer or seek permission to respond by September 12, 2025.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.