Bridges v. The State of New York Correctional Services

Background

Donnell Bridges, a self-represented plaintiff who was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He alleged that doctors and other defendants violated his rights. His amended complaint did not name Montefiore Mount Vernon Hospital, the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Thomas Griffin, E. Pagan, or N.A. Dawn Osselmann, even though he appeared to intend to continue claims against some or all of them.

The court considered several letters: Mount Vernon Hospital’s request for an order removing it from the case; Bridges’s requests for free legal counsel, discovery, and summary judgment; and certain defendants’ request for a conference before filing a motion to dismiss.

Rulings on the parties’ requests

The court denied without prejudice Mount Vernon Hospital’s request to terminate it from the case. Because there was no apparent prejudice in allowing another amendment, the court gave Bridges until December 30, 2020, to file a Second Amended Complaint if he wished to pursue claims against Mount Vernon Hospital, Thomas Griffin, E. Pagan, and/or N.A. Dawn Osselmann. The court stated that the new complaint must include all allegations on which Bridges wished to rely and identify each defendant, the defendant’s conduct, and how that conduct created civil-rights or other liability. The court also reminded Bridges that an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint and that claims previously dismissed with prejudice could be dismissed again if reasserted identically.

The court denied without prejudice Bridges’s fifth request for appointment of free legal counsel. It found no indication at that stage that his claims were likely to have substance or that circumstances warranted appointing counsel. The court noted that defendants had not yet had an opportunity to respond to the amended complaint and allowed Bridges to renew the request later.

The court denied without prejudice Bridges’s motion for summary judgment. It found the request both procedurally improper, because Bridges had not followed the court’s requirement to request a conference before filing such a motion, and premature because defendants had not yet responded to the amended complaint and Bridges might amend it again.

The court also denied without prejudice Bridges’s request to compel document production. It found that he had not identified whether he had served discovery requests, received objections or documents, or met and conferred with the defendants. The court further stated that discovery was premature while amendment and dismissal-motion proceedings remained pending.

Further case-management orders

The court waived the defendants’ requested pre-motion conference and established a schedule for proposed motions to dismiss. Defendants were to serve their motions on February 1, 2021; Bridges was to serve opposition papers on March 3, 2021; defendants were to serve replies on March 17, 2021; and the motion papers and opposition papers were to be filed on March 17, 2021. The court directed the previously named defendants and Mount Vernon Hospital either to file motions to dismiss under that schedule or to answer a properly filed and served Second Amended Complaint.

The court separately ordered Bridges to show cause—meaning explain—to the court by December 30, 2020, why “Dr. Pennsylvania” should not be dismissed. The court had previously been told that Dr. Robert Bentivegna was the medical professional who treated Bridges during the relevant period, and Bridges had not submitted the requested affidavit or other documentation supporting keeping “Dr. Pennsylvania” in the case.

Disposition and effect

The order denied without prejudice the requests for counsel, discovery, and summary judgment; denied without prejudice Mount Vernon Hospital’s termination request; directed a possible Second Amended Complaint; set a schedule for dismissal motions; and required a response concerning “Dr. Pennsylvania.” It did not decide the ultimate merits of Bridges’s remaining civil-rights claims.