Marshall v. Annucci
- Paul Davison
- 7:16-cv-08622
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marshall v. Annucci, Judge Davison denied Marshall’s motion to reconsider adding medical-indifference damages against William Vertoske.
Anthony Marshall’s request to add a monetary-damages claim against William Vertoske was rejected; the court’s earlier denial of leave to amend was not reconsidered.
What happened
In Marshall v. Annucci, Anthony Marshall asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to let him add a claim for money damages against William Vertoske personally. The proposed claim concerned alleged failure to respond properly to Marshall’s serious medical needs.
Marshall argued that the court had relied on only one allegation naming Vertoske and that he had acted diligently in seeking to amend his complaint. He also provided information about evidence obtained during discovery concerning Vertoske’s role.
Judge Paul E. Davison denied the motion. He concluded that the earlier decision considered the complaint’s allegations together and that Marshall had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or serious unfairness requiring reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Marshall v. Annucci · No. 7:16-cv-08622
- Paul Davison
- Apr. 29, 2021
Background
Anthony Marshall moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision denying him leave to amend his complaint. The requested amendment would have added a claim for monetary damages against William Vertoske in Vertoske’s individual capacity, based on alleged deliberate indifference to Marshall’s serious medical needs.
Marshall’s arguments
Marshall argued that the court’s earlier conclusion relied on one allegation that named Vertoske: that each listed administrator was responsible for Marshall’s care and treatment while he was in custody. Marshall also argued that he had acted diligently in seeking to amend and provided information about the timing and nature of discovery evidence concerning Vertoske’s role.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and is generally available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or serious unfairness requiring correction.
The court acknowledged that the allegation quoted by Marshall was the only allegation that referred to Vertoske by name. It nevertheless stated that its earlier conclusion considered many allegations together. Those allegations plausibly suggested that Vertoske allowed policies and practices to continue that allegedly contributed to Marshall’s confinement in isolation for more than four and a half years and to a significant deterioration in his mental health.
The court also found that Marshall’s discussion of diligence attempted to address belatedly an omission identified in the earlier decision. Marshall had not previously specified which documents disclosed relevant information or when those documents were produced. Instead, he had broadly referred to the date when the defendants completed their entire document production.
Ruling
Judge Paul E. Davison denied Marshall’s motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Marshall had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or serious unfairness. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.