Akinlawon v. Polanco

Background

Ayotunji Akinlawon, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state officials. The opinion states that the original action named 23 defendants, who were either corrections officers at Green Haven Correctional Facility or officials at the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Akinlawon alleged constitutional violations occurring while he was incarcerated at Green Haven.

On January 19, 2022, Akinlawon moved for default judgment. After receiving two extensions, defendants timely filed a motion to dismiss on February 18, 2022. In response, Akinlawon filed an amended complaint on March 17, 2022.

Rulings on the Pending Motions

The court denied Akinlawon’s motion for default judgment as moot. Under the applicable procedure, a timely motion to dismiss suspends the deadline for filing an answer, so the court found that defendants were not in default.

The court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. It explained that Akinlawon was entitled to amend once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading was served, and that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. The amended complaint therefore replaced the original complaint, making the dismissal motion directed at the original complaint moot.

Problems with the Amended Complaint

The amended complaint contained 44 handwritten pages and allegations against 47 defendants concerning multiple unrelated incidents. The court stated that the pleading likely did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement giving defendants fair notice of the claims and the basis for relief. The court noted that a complaint may be dismissed when it is so confusing that defendants cannot understand or defend against it.

The court also stated that many allegations concerned incidents at Great Meadow, which is located in the Northern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York. It instructed Akinlawon to exclude claims relating to incidents at Great Meadow because those claims were properly filed in the Northern District of New York.

Injunctive Relief

The amended complaint appeared to include a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court stated that Akinlawon had not clearly identified the basis for that request. It instructed him to clarify the basis for seeking injunctive relief and stated that defendants should have an opportunity to respond. The court also discussed requirements including irreparable harm, a sufficient showing concerning the merits, the balance of hardships, the public interest, and notice to defendants. It did not grant the requested relief in this order.

Instructions and Disposition

The court instructed Akinlawon to re-file an amended complaint by September 20, 2022. The new pleading was to contain a short and plain statement of his claims, identify what each defendant allegedly did to cause injury, and exclude claims concerning incidents at Great Meadow. Within the time allowed for their response, defendants were directed to file either an answer or a pre-motion letter describing the grounds for an anticipated motion to dismiss. The court stated that there would be no extensions.

The order denied Akinlawon’s Motion for Default Judgment as moot and denied defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as moot. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions and mail a copy of the order to Akinlawon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order on August 24, 2022.