Booker v. Griffin

Background

Amin Doshawn Booker filed a Second Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The complaint concerned alleged constitutional violations connected to his incarceration at Green Haven and Elmira Correctional Facilities. Booker initially proceeded without a lawyer. Pro bono counsel entered the case on his behalf in January 2020.

Booker asked for permission to file a Third Amended Complaint. He sought to add an Eighth Amendment claim alleging that defendants subjected him to solitary confinement for five years, and to add Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Executive Deputy Commissioner James O’Gorman, Deputy Commissioner Joseph Bellnier, and certain unidentified John Does as defendants. The proposed complaint also added factual allegations supporting existing claims.

Legal Standard

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally requires courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. Leave to amend may nevertheless be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, or futility. Because the operative discovery schedule did not set a deadline for amending the pleadings or joining parties, the court found Booker’s application timely under that schedule.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants argued that Booker could not seek another amendment because Judge Roman had previously denied two applications to file a Third Amended Complaint. The court concluded that it was appropriate to revisit that determination because those earlier rulings occurred while Booker was representing himself, after which pro bono counsel entered the case, a new discovery schedule was issued, and fact discovery began.

The court required Booker to strike the proposed First Amendment retaliation claims against Chappius and Keller because Judge Roman had already dismissed those claims.

The court rejected the defendants’ objection to the proposed Eighth Amendment claim. It found that the claim offered an alternative legal theory for seeking compensation for injuries allegedly caused by prolonged solitary confinement, based on allegations already concerning Booker’s confinement and the harm he allegedly suffered.

As to the proposed additional defendants, the court found that the deposition testimony Booker cited provided a factual basis to join Joseph Bellnier, but did not provide a factual basis to join Anthony J. Annucci, James O’Gorman, or the unidentified John Does. The court therefore denied joinder of Annucci, O’Gorman, and the John Does.

The court also found that Booker had provided a plausible explanation for the timing of his request. It cited the timing of discovery after counsel entered the case and the asserted effects of the ongoing pandemic on communication about case strategy. The defendants’ concern that the amendment would require additional discovery and resources did not establish undue prejudice, particularly because Booker stated that the additional fact discovery would be limited and could be completed by the existing deadline.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Booker’s application for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. It granted the application to the extent Booker could join Joseph Bellnier as a defendant and add the proposed Eighth Amendment claim. It denied the application in part to the extent Booker had to strike the First Amendment retaliation claims against Chappius and Keller and could not join Anthony J. Annucci, James O’Gorman, or the unidentified John Does. The court ordered Booker to file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with the order within seven days.