Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-06754
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Roger Lainez v. Amy Roycroft, Judge Briccetti entered judgment for defendants after Lainez failed to amend his deliberate-indifference claim.
Roger Lainez’s case was closed, and judgment was entered in favor of Amy Roycroft, Ashley Harris-Baker, Jeanette Barret-Wilson, Julio Martinez, and Stephanie O’Sullivan.
What happened
Roger Lainez sued Amy Roycroft, Ashley Harris-Baker, Jeanette Barret-Wilson, Julio Martinez, and Stephanie O’Sullivan. The court had previously dismissed all of Lainez’s claims but allowed him to file a second amended complaint concerning his Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
The court ordered Lainez to file that complaint by November 7, 2019, and warned that failing to do so would mean he had abandoned the case. Lainez did not file the complaint or ask for more time.
On November 25, 2019, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the Clerk to enter judgment in defendants’ favor and close the case. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections · No. 7:18-cv-06754
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
On October 7, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It gave Lainez permission to file a second amended complaint limited to his Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. The court set a November 7, 2019 deadline and warned that failure to meet it would be treated as abandonment of the case and would lead to judgment for the defendants.
What happened next
Lainez did not file a second amended complaint and did not request an extension of time. The order states that the court had already dismissed all of his claims.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in the defendants’ favor and close the case. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Lainez a copy of the order at the address on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.