Milton v. Rehman
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-02770
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Milton v. Rehman, Judge Wang denied Milton’s request to add Sergeant Marmolejos as a defendant because the proposed claim was futile.
Robert Milton’s attempt to add Sergeant Marmolejos as a defendant was denied; the defendants were directed to address outstanding discovery and efforts to locate the missing video.
What happened
In Milton v. Rehman, Robert Milton asked to add Sergeant Marmolejos as a defendant. Milton said important video footage was missing and alleged that Marmolejos violated Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directives during or after Milton’s transport.
The defendants treated Milton’s letter as a request to amend the complaint and as a discovery-related request. Milton also alleged that Marmolejos failed to film the entire transport or failed to make sure the video was not erased or changed.
Judge Wang denied the request to amend the complaint a third time because violating the agency’s directives, by itself, would not amount to a constitutional violation. She also directed defense counsel to meet with Milton and file an update about any remaining discovery and efforts to find the missing video.
The detailed version
- Milton v. Rehman · No. 1:19-cv-02770
- Ona Wang
- Feb. 11, 2022
Background
Robert Milton, who was representing himself, filed a letter asking to add Sergeant Marmolejos as a defendant and referring to a discovery subpoena. Milton claimed that significant portions of video footage were missing and that Sergeant Marmolejos and defense counsel were responsible for the lost or missing evidence. He said Marmolejos violated Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directives by either failing to film the entire transport from MCC to Sing Sing or failing to ensure that the video was not partially erased or manipulated.
The defendants treated Milton’s letter as both a motion to amend the complaint and a discovery-related motion. The court did the same.
Legal standard
Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts generally should allow a party to amend a pleading when justice requires. An amendment may be denied for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile if the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss—that is, if the alleged facts, accepted as true, would not plausibly support a right to relief.
Ruling
The court held that violating a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directive does not, by itself, amount to a constitutional violation. It therefore concluded that Milton’s proposed claim against Sergeant Marmolejos was futile and denied Milton’s request to amend the complaint a third time to add Marmolejos as a defendant.
The court separately directed defense counsel to meet and confer with Milton and file a status update identifying any outstanding discovery and describing additional efforts to locate the video footage that Milton said was missing. The order did not determine who was responsible for the missing footage.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.