Turner v. Cimorelli
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-00643
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Turner v. Cimorelli, Judge Halpern ordered Allahjustice Turner to clarify whether his amended complaint supplemented his original claims.
Allahjustice Turner and the defendants named in his original and amended complaints, including the medical defendants and the defendants identified as Murphy and Moore.
What happened
In Turner v. Cimorelli, Allahjustice Turner, who was incarcerated and representing himself, filed claims under a federal civil-rights law alleging excessive force. His amended complaint instead described claims involving medical treatment by Nurse Rawls, Nurse Washington, and an unnamed medical director, but it did not clearly repeat claims against Murphy and Moore.
The court had warned that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it. Because it was unclear whether Turner intended to preserve his earlier claims, the court gave him until September 28, 2020, to send a letter explaining whether the amended complaint should supplement the original complaint.
Judge Halpern stated that if Turner did not respond, or said he did not intend to supplement the original complaint, the amended complaint would become the operative complaint and would be screened under federal law. No summons would issue at that time, and the court denied fee-waiver status for an appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Cimorelli · No. 7:20-cv-00643
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 31, 2020
Background
Allahjustice Turner filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He proceeded without a lawyer and alleged that certain defendants used excessive force against him. The court had previously allowed him to file an amended complaint to replead claims against unidentified medical-staff defendants. The court warned that an amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint, so Turner would have to repeat any claims he wanted to preserve.
Turner filed an amended complaint asserting claims involving Nurse Rawls, who gave him two Benadryl for allergies and possibly failed to notify kitchen staff about his allergy before he received another meal involving mushrooms. He also asserted a claim involving Nurse Washington, who allegedly said she could do nothing about irritating bumps on one side of his mouth. Turner additionally asserted § 1983 claims against a medical director based on supervisory liability, sometimes called respondeat superior. The amended complaint did not replead the claims against Murphy and Moore that the court later identified as potentially omitted.
Court’s Action
The court said it was not clear whether Turner intended the amended complaint to supplement the original complaint rather than replace it. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) allows a court, on motion, to permit a supplemental pleading concerning later events. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally and evaluated under a more flexible standard.
The court directed Turner to file a letter through the court’s electronic filing system by September 28, 2020, stating whether he intended the amended complaint to supplement the original complaint. If Turner failed to respond or said he did not intend to supplement the original complaint, the court would treat the amended complaint as the operative complaint and screen it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). That screening provision requires review of certain complaints filed by people who cannot afford filing fees. No summons would issue at that time.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether Turner’s excessive-force or medical-treatment claims were legally valid.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed Turner to clarify whether his amended complaint supplemented the original complaint. The order did not dismiss the action, grant judgment, or reach the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.