Gallicchio v. Vanderhey-Wright
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-08135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 24
Gallicchio v. Vanderhey-Wright: Judge Halpern denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice for failing to follow required pre-motion procedures.
The order affected plaintiff Vito Gallicchio and defendants Jayne Vanderhey-Wright, Jacob Knibbs, and Bryan Walls. It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and did not resolve Gallicchio’s underlying claims.
What happened
In Vito Gallicchio v. Jayne Vanderhey-Wright, Jacob Knibbs, and Bryan Walls, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Gallicchio’s complaint. The filing raised arguments about his claims, but the court did not address those arguments.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because the defendants did not comply with the court’s procedures for motions to dismiss. Those procedures required the parties to exchange two sets of letters before such a motion, and required a pre-motion letter even in a case involving a party without a lawyer. A denial without prejudice does not bar a later filing that complies with the procedures.
Judge Philip Halpern entered the order on September 8, 2025. The order resolved only the procedural defect and did not decide whether Gallicchio’s claims should ultimately be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Gallicchio v. Vanderhey-Wright · No. 7:24-cv-08135
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 8, 2025
Order
The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. The stated reason was failure to comply with the court’s Individual Practices concerning motions to dismiss.
Procedural Requirement
The court cited Rule 4(C)(i), which requires the parties to exchange two sets of pre-motion letters for a motion to dismiss. It also cited Rule 2(C), which requires a party considering a motion to file a pre-motion letter even in a case where the plaintiff is proceeding without a lawyer.
Scope of the Ruling
The submitted memorandum argued that Gallicchio’s claims should be dismissed for several reasons, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of an available damages remedy under Bivens, failure to state a claim, and immunity for defendant Vander Hey-Wright. The court’s order did not decide any of those arguments. It denied the motion without prejudice based on noncompliance with the pre-motion procedures, leaving the defendants able to file again in compliance with those procedures.
Effect on the Case
The order did not dismiss Gallicchio’s complaint or enter a merits ruling on his claims. It addressed only the defendants’ failure to follow the court’s required process for bringing the motion. Judge Philip Halpern signed the order on September 8, 2025.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.