Hernandez v. Oswinksi
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-07365
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hernandez v. Oswinksi, Judge Briccetti entered judgment for defendants after Hernandez failed to file an amended complaint.
Luis A. Hernandez and the defendants named in the caption: W. Oswinski, C.O. Faizon, and K. Lasik, the name under which C.O. Lassic was sued. The case was closed, and fee-free status was denied for purposes of an appeal.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Oswinksi, the court had dismissed all of Hernandez’s claims but allowed him to file an amended complaint about alleged sexual abuse under the Eighth Amendment against C.O. Faizon and C.O. Lassic.
The court set a November 7, 2019 deadline and warned that failing to amend would be treated as abandoning the case. Hernandez filed neither an amended complaint nor a request for more time.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Oswinksi · No. 7:18-cv-07365
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
In an earlier opinion and order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Hernandez’s claims. The court allowed Hernandez to file an amended complaint limited to his Eighth Amendment sexual-abuse claims against C.O. Faizon and C.O. Lassic. The opinion states that C.O. Lassic had been incorrectly sued as “K. Lasik.”
Failure to Amend
The court ordered Hernandez to file the amended complaint by November 7, 2019. It warned that if he did not do so, the court would treat him as having abandoned the case, direct entry of judgment for the defendants, and close the case. Hernandez did not file an amended complaint or ask for an extension of time.
Ruling
Because all of Hernandez’s claims had already been dismissed and he did not file the permitted amended complaint, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the Clerk to enter judgment in the defendants’ favor and close the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Hernandez fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Hernandez a copy of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.