Liverpool v. The City of New York
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-01354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Liverpool v. City of New York, Judge Moses denied leave to add claims and defendants because Liverpool showed no good cause for the late amendment.
Anton F. Liverpool’s request to add Officer Leach and Officer John Doe and to assert claims based on an additional alleged inmate assault was denied; his September 6, 2018 amended complaint remained controlling.
What happened
In Liverpool v. The City of New York, Anton F. Liverpool, who was representing himself, sought to add Officer Leach and an unidentified officer as defendants. He also sought damages for an additional February 2015 inmate assault at Rikers Island. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the proposed amendment as too late.
The court treated Liverpool’s filing as a request for permission to amend because the deadline for amending without permission had passed. It ruled that Liverpool had not shown a sufficient reason for waiting so long, especially because he knew about the incident and had previously been told to include all claims and defendants in his amended complaint. The court did not decide whether the proposed civil-rights claim was otherwise barred by the time limit.
Judge Barbara Moses denied Liverpool’s request for permission to amend because he had not shown good cause. The September 6, 2018 amended complaint remained the operative pleading, meaning it continued to control the case.
The detailed version
- Liverpool v. The City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-01354
- Barbara Moses
- June 9, 2020
Background
Anton F. Liverpool filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. His amended complaint sought damages from The City of New York and correctional officers for injuries from inmate assaults allegedly occurring in February 2015 while he was incarcerated at Rikers Island.
The court had allowed Liverpool to file an amended complaint by September 10, 2018. His amended complaint, filed September 6, 2018, became the operative pleading. A January 2019 case-management order stated that the parties could not further amend their pleadings or add parties without the court’s permission. Fact discovery closed on December 20, 2019. In May 2020, the court reopened discovery only for medical releases, medical records, and Liverpool’s deposition, and denied his request to continue pursuing the identities of two previously referenced unidentified defendants.
On May 28, 2020, Liverpool filed a document titled “Amendment of Complaint.” It sought to add Officer Leach and Officer John Doe and alleged a different February 2015 inmate assault. Liverpool alleged that Officer Leach failed to notice the assault, and that Officer Leach and Officer John Doe failed to report it or separate him from the alleged assailant. He alleged that the assault dislocated his right pinky finger. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the proposed amendment as time-barred.
Legal standard
Because the deadline for amending without permission had passed, the court treated Liverpool’s filing as a motion for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). That rule generally says courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. But Rule 16(b)(4) requires a party seeking to change a court-ordered schedule to show “good cause” and obtain the judge’s consent. Good cause depends on the party’s diligence: the party must show that the deadline could not reasonably have been met despite diligent efforts.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Liverpool had not shown good cause to add a new claim against new defendants at that late stage. The proposed claim concerned an incident that occurred before the incidents described in his original and amended complaints. The court emphasized that Liverpool knew about the incident and could have included it in his amended complaint. It also noted that an earlier order had specifically instructed him that the amended complaint had to replace the original complaint and identify all intended defendants, legal claims, and supporting facts.
The court stated that Liverpool’s lack of a lawyer did not excuse the need to act diligently. Because it denied permission to amend for lack of good cause, the court did not decide whether a civil-rights claim based on the newly alleged incident would be barred by the applicable time limit.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses denied Liverpool’s motion for leave to further amend his pleading for lack of good cause. The amended complaint filed on September 6, 2018 remained the operative pleading. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the proposed claim on the statute-of-limitations issue or decide the underlying merits of the proposed claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.