Jones v. Carter
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-08990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jones v. Carter, Magistrate Judge Cave gave Andre C. Jones one final chance to amend or oppose defendants’ dismissal motion.
Andre C. Jones, Sr., who was representing himself, and the defendants named in his complaint. The order also directed the Clerk of Court and set a deadline for the defendants to reply if Jones filed an opposition.
What happened
In Jones v. Carter, Andre C. Jones, who is representing himself, alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was confined at the Vernon C. Bain Center. The court had previously required him to identify and name a defendant originally listed as “Captain John Doe,” but he did not file an amended complaint after receiving the identifying information.
The defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint. Jones did not oppose the motion, amend his complaint, or otherwise contact the court by the extended deadline. The court warned that it could decide the motion using only the defendants’ submissions and that the case might be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to respond.
The court gave Jones one final opportunity to file either an amended complaint or his opposition by May 31, 2022, and ordered that any defendants’ reply would be due June 14, 2022, if he filed an opposition. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued this procedural order; the court did not decide the dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-08990
- Valerie Caproni
- May 9, 2022
Background
Andre C. Jones, Sr. brings this action without a lawyer against Warden Carter, Captain Guerra, Capt. John Doe, and Captain Horton. He alleges that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights while he was confined at the Vernon C. Bain Center in the Bronx, New York. The opinion states that Jones was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island when the order was issued.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial supervision and dispositive motions. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the case or a claim. On December 9, 2021, the court directed the New York City Law Department to provide the identity and badge number of the defendant identified as “Captain John Doe.” The court also ordered Jones to file an amended complaint naming that person within 30 days after receiving the information. The Law Department provided the information by letter dated February 7, 2022, but Jones had not filed an amended complaint.
Pending motion and missed deadline
On March 14, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss Jones’s complaint in its entirety. On March 15, 2022, the court extended Jones’s deadline to oppose the motion to April 28, 2022. The court warned that if he chose not to amend his complaint, it was unlikely to recommend allowing a later amendment, particularly to replace the “John Doe” defendant. Jones did not oppose the motion, file an amended complaint, or otherwise communicate with the court.
Order
Because Jones was representing himself, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave gave him one final opportunity to respond. The order required Jones, by May 31, 2022, to file either an amended complaint or his opposition to the defendants’ motion. If he filed an opposition, the defendants had to serve and file a reply by June 14, 2022. The order repeated the warning about a later request to amend and stated that failing to respond could lead the court to decide the motion based only on the defendants’ submissions and could result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
The court did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this order. It set deadlines and provided a final opportunity to respond. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Jones a copy of the order and noted that he could seek free legal advice from the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for people representing themselves.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.