Henderson v. Alvarez
- Alison Nathan
- 1:17-cv-03977
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Henderson v. Alvarez, Judge Nathan gave pro se plaintiff Tyrel Henderson time to amend or oppose a pending dismissal motion.
Tyrel Henderson, Defendant Alvarez, and the other defendants identified in the caption as defendants were affected by the amendment and briefing deadlines.
What happened
In Henderson v. Alvarez, Defendant Alvarez had filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint under a federal procedural rule.
Because Tyrel Henderson was representing himself, the court gave him additional time to file an amended complaint instead of responding immediately to the motion. The order explained that an amended complaint would replace the original and must include all information needed to explain why each defendant should provide relief.
Judge Nathan ordered Henderson to file an amended complaint or oppose the dismissal motion by December 14, 2019. If no amendment was filed, Defendants could reply by December 31, 2019, and either side could request an extension by showing diligence and a good reason. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Henderson v. Alvarez · No. 1:17-cv-03977
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
Defendant Alvarez filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 12, 2019. Rule 12(b) provides procedures for asking a court to dismiss a complaint. The opinion states that Plaintiff Tyrel Henderson was proceeding without a lawyer.
Opportunity to Amend
The court explained that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) ordinarily gives a plaintiff 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion to amend the complaint once as a matter of course. Because Henderson was representing himself, the court gave him additional time. If he intended to amend, he had to file the amended complaint by December 14, 2019.
The court advised that any amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint. It therefore had to include all information Henderson believed necessary to make a short and plain statement explaining why he was entitled to relief against each defendant. The court also warned that failing to amend in response to arguments fully presented in the motion could result in waiver of the opportunity to use the amendment process to correct defects identified in the defendants’ briefing.
Briefing Schedule and Disposition
If Henderson filed an amended complaint, the order stated that Defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating their intended position regarding the initially filed motion; the last option is incomplete in the provided opinion text. If Henderson did not amend, he had to serve his opposition to the motion to dismiss by December 14, 2019, and Defendants could serve a reply by December 31, 2019. At the time of any reply, Defendants also had to provide the judge’s chambers with a courtesy copy of the motion papers.
Either party could request an extension of the briefing schedule by showing diligence and a good reason. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the complaint. Judge Alison J. Nathan also directed chambers to mail a copy of the order to Henderson and note that mailing on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.