Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 27, 2020

Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-08730
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Anthony F. Debellis v. Lt. White #18909, Judge Furman struck the amended complaint, allowed one final amendment, and denied counsel without prejudice.

Who this affects

Anthony F. Debellis’s amended pleading and request for appointed counsel were affected. The order preserved one final opportunity to amend and stated that only the sexual-assault claim against Lieutenant White would proceed if no proper amendment was filed.

What happened

In Anthony F. Debellis v. Lt. White #18909, the court reviewed Debellis’s Second Amended Complaint after an earlier order dismissed most of his claims and allowed him to amend. The court had warned that only his sexual-assault claim against Lieutenant White would continue if he did not properly amend.

The court found that the Second Amended Complaint contained no factual allegations, did not give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and included inappropriate and irrelevant statements. It struck the complaint and, alternatively, dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave Debellis one final opportunity to file a proper amended complaint within 45 days.

Judge Jesse M. Furman also denied Debellis’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal later and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. If Debellis did not file a proper amended complaint, the court stated that only the sexual-assault claim against Lieutenant White would proceed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn · No. 1:19-cv-08730
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Aug. 27, 2020

Background

On February 13, 2020, the court dismissed most of Anthony F. Debellis’s claims and gave him permission to amend. The court directed him to use a Second Amended Complaint form and identify allegations that corrected the problems described in the earlier opinion. It warned that, if he did not do so, only his sexual-assault claim against Lieutenant White would continue.

The court later renewed that permission because Debellis may not have received the earlier opinion and orders after being moved between facilities. On August 20, 2020, the court received Debellis’s Second Amended Complaint, dated August 18, 2020.

Second Amended Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to give a short, plain, and plausible statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that Debellis’s submission did not meet those requirements. It contained no allegations at all, including none concerning the sexual-assault claim that had survived the earlier order. The court also found that the submission contained inappropriate and irrelevant statements that did not belong in a court filing.

Although courts must read filings by people without lawyers generously, the court concluded that this complaint went beyond the limits of that treatment. It struck the Second Amended Complaint as immaterial and impertinent under Rule 12(f). Alternatively, it dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Opportunity to Amend

Despite those rulings, the court granted Debellis one final opportunity to file a proper amended complaint within 45 days. The court stated that it would not consider his June 15 submissions and would consider only claims properly raised in the new amended complaint. If Debellis filed nothing by the deadline, or filed another deficient submission, the court stated that the only claim that would proceed was the sexual-assault claim against Lieutenant White.

Request for Counsel and Appeal Fees

The court treated Debellis’s statement that he needed a lawyer as a request for appointed counsel. Because the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits, the court denied the motion for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Debellis.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman struck the Second Amended Complaint as immaterial and impertinent and, alternatively, dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court granted one final opportunity to amend, denied the request for counsel without prejudice, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.