Kastner v. Tri State Eye
- Louis Stanton
- 7:19-cv-10668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Kastner v. Tri State Eye, Chief Judge McMahon granted leave to amend, finding the complaint still violated pleading rules and warning of dismissal.
Joseph Kastner was allowed to file a second amended complaint concerning his alleged eye-treatment injuries. The named defendants, including Tri State Eye, remained parties while the court required Kastner to clarify his claims and identify the individual defendants involved.
What happened
Joseph Kastner sued Tri State Eye and 18 other defendants over medical treatment and alleged loss of vision. The court had previously allowed him to amend a 154-page complaint because it joined unrelated claims against unrelated defendants, but his 21-page amended complaint still did not follow the required rules.
The court treated the allegations as possibly raising a claim that state officials violated Kastner’s constitutional rights while he was in New York’s corrections custody. But the complaint did not clearly say whether he was in that custody during the treatment or identify an individual defendant who violated his rights there.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon granted Kastner leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. The order required a short, plain, 20-page-or-less complaint limited to related claims and warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim; it also denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Kastner v. Tri State Eye · No. 7:19-cv-10668
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
Joseph Kastner filed a complaint naming 19 defendants and asserting claims concerning eye surgeries and treatment. He alleged that treatment involving Tri State Eye, Crystal Run Healthcare, Orange Regional Medical Center, and others caused him to lose vision in both eyes. The opinion states that he referred to three doctors who were not named as defendants and that he also mentioned the New York State Department of Corrections, which was not named as a defendant.
The court had previously granted Kastner permission to amend his original 154-page, single-spaced complaint because it appeared to combine unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. Kastner then filed a 21-page amended complaint, but the court concluded that it still did not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 20.
Legal standard and analysis
The court explained that it may dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or that does not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, even when the plaintiff paid the filing fee. It also stated that courts must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.
Because the allegations suggested that Kastner may have been in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision during some of his treatment, the court interpreted the complaint as possibly asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute requires allegations that a constitutional or federal-law right was violated by a person acting for the state.
The court found that it was unclear whether Kastner was in that custody when he received the treatment at issue or whether the corrections department was responsible for the treatment. The court also found that he had not identified an individual defendant who violated his rights while he was in custody.
Ruling and requirements
The court granted Kastner leave to file a second amended complaint. It required him to submit the complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days, label it “Second Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-10668 (CM). The new complaint must contain a short and plain statement explaining how each named individual defendant violated his rights while he was in custody, may not combine unrelated claims against multiple defendants, and must be limited to 20 pages. The court encouraged him to use the attached second amended civil-rights complaint form.
The court did not issue a summons at that time. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Kastner and record service on the docket. The order states that if Kastner failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure, the amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The motion or request addressed by the order was not dismissed or finally resolved on the merits. The court granted leave to amend and set pleading requirements for the next complaint.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.