Maldonado v. Gunsett
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Judge Briccetti denied Maldonado’s transfer request because his fear of retaliation was too speculative.
Maldonado, who was representing himself, was denied a transfer order and permission to appeal without paying filing fees; the case deadline for filing a third amended complaint remained July 1, 2022.
What happened
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Maldonado said the Attorney General had misstated the dates of alleged 2005 incidents and asked the court to transfer him from Mid-State Correctional Facility. He said the transfer would protect him from unspecified retaliation by a correction officer identified as a defendant whose name was not yet known.
The court found no disagreement about the incident dates, concluding that both sides identified February 1, 2005, and April 12, 2005. It kept July 1, 2022, as Maldonado’s deadline to file a further amended complaint naming additional defendants.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the transfer request, stating that the fear of future retaliation was too speculative to justify an order protecting Maldonado. The court also denied Maldonado permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Gunsett · No. 7:21-cv-03719
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 17, 2022
Background
Maldonado, who was representing himself and had been permitted to proceed without paying filing fees, submitted a June 7, 2022, letter. He claimed that the Attorney General had made mistakes in a June 2 letter concerning the dates of incidents alleged in his second amended complaint.
Maldonado also asked the court to order his transfer from Mid-State Correctional Facility. He said the transfer was needed to protect him from unspecified retaliation by a correction officer at the facility. The Attorney General had recently identified that officer as a “John Doe” defendant, meaning a defendant whose name was not yet known.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and found no inconsistency about the dates of the alleged incidents. The court stated that both Maldonado and the Attorney General appeared to agree that the incidents occurred on February 1, 2005, and April 12, 2005.
The court therefore left unchanged the July 1, 2022, deadline for Maldonado to file a third amended complaint naming additional defendants identified by the Attorney General.
As to the requested transfer, the court denied injunctive relief—an order requiring action to protect a party. The court stated that even if it had authority to order the requested relief, Maldonado’s general fear of future retaliation was too speculative to warrant it.
Disposition
The court denied Maldonado’s request for injunctive relief. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not address the merits of Maldonado’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.