Washington v. Fitzpatrick
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Washington v. Fitzpatrick, Judge Briccetti dismissed the case with prejudice after Washington failed to amend his complaint or seek an extension.
Charles E. Washington and the defendants named in the case, including Correction Officer T. Fitzpatrick, Correction Officer Sain Clair, Sergeant Sheridan, Lieutenant Jordan, and Colonel Sipple.
What happened
Charles E. Washington, representing himself and without paying the filing fee, sued Correction Officer T. Fitzpatrick and other defendants. The opinion says the court had allowed him to amend certain retaliation, due-process, and conspiracy claims after granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court gave Washington a deadline to file an amended complaint or request more time and warned that failing to do so would end the case. Washington did neither, and the court did not receive returned mail or other indication that he had not received the earlier order and attachments.
The court concluded that Washington had abandoned the case and, in an order signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti, dismissed it with prejudice for failing to prosecute and comply with court orders. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Fitzpatrick · No. 7:20-cv-00911
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 3, 2021
Background
Charles E. Washington, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, filed this action against Correction Officer T. Fitzpatrick, Correction Officer Sain Clair, Sergeant Sheridan, Lieutenant Jordan, and Colonel Sipple. The opinion states that Washington was incarcerated at Shawangunk Correctional Facility when he filed the complaint.
Earlier Ruling and Deadline
On March 15, 2021, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss but allowed Washington to file an amended complaint concerning three categories of claims: First Amendment retaliation claims against C.O. Sain Clair and C.O. Fitzpatrick; a procedural due-process claim against Lt. Jordan; and a conspiracy claim against C.O. Sain Clair, C.O. Fitzpatrick, and Lt. Jordan. The court’s earlier order instructed Washington how to amend those claims and warned that failure to file an amended complaint or request more time by the deadline would be treated as abandonment of the case, followed by judgment for the defendants and closure of the case.
The court’s chambers mailed the earlier order, the unpublished decisions cited in it, and an amended-complaint form to Washington at the address listed on the docket. The court stated that Washington did not file an amended complaint or request an extension. It also stated that the state inmate-look-up system continued to list him at the same facility and that the court had received no returned mail or other indication that he had not received the earlier materials.
Ruling
The court concluded that Washington had abandoned the case. Applying the factors identified in Lucas v. Miles, the court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the dismissed case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to proceed without paying the required fees on appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.