Barnett v. Diaz

Background

Lafvorne Levi Barnett, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sgt. P. Diaz, C.O. Bonnell, C.O. Prescott, C.O. Daddezio, C.O. Williams, C.O. Favre, and the State of New [the opinion text is incomplete]. Barnett’s Second Amended Complaint was the operative pleading. The pending motions sought permission to file a Third Amended Complaint, appointment of pro bono counsel, summary judgment, and discovery described as a request for a more definite statement.

Motion to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows amendment with the court’s permission when justice requires, but leave may be denied for reasons including undue delay, prejudice, or futility. A proposed amendment is futile if its allegations would not state a viable claim. Adding parties is governed by Rule 21, applying a similar standard.

The court denied Barnett’s motion to amend. The proposed allegations concerning Nurse Liciaga—that she allegedly altered a “U-I-Report” or medical report—did not relate to the excessive-force and medical-indifference allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. The allegations concerning Captain Maxwell and Lieutenant T. McCoy merely said that they were “on scene” and allowed corruption to occur; the court found those statements too conclusory to show their personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. The remaining proposed material consisted of questions to existing defendants rather than new factual allegations.

The order states that the amendment request was denied partially with prejudice and partially without prejudice. The footnote specifies that the request concerning Nurse Liciaga was denied with prejudice. The request concerning Captain Maxwell and Lieutenant T. McCoy was denied without prejudice to renewal with further information. The Second Amended Complaint remained operative.

Motion for Pro Bono Counsel

The court denied Barnett’s second request for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. The court considered his stated efforts to find counsel independently and medical records describing several previously diagnosed mental illnesses. It found no current indication that his claims had a strong chance of success, that the legal issues were unusually complex, or that his conditions prevented him from handling the case without assistance. The court noted that this assessment could change as the case progressed.

Summary-Judgment and Discovery Motions

The court denied Barnett’s motions for summary judgment without prejudice because discovery had not yet been exchanged, making the motions premature. Barnett’s arguments concerned the explanation for an eye injury, medical-attention entries, and allegedly altered or incomplete reports. The court did not decide the underlying merits of those arguments.

The court denied as moot Barnett’s motion for “Discovery of a More Definite Statement.” Because the case was about to proceed to discovery, the court said Barnett would have an opportunity to make or renew discovery requests. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 59, 65, 89, 104, 108, and 109.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the various motions as specified above. The case was not resolved on the merits by this order; the Second Amended Complaint remained pending and the action was to proceed toward discovery.