Carzoglio v. Paul
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-03651-NSR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Carzoglio v. Paul, Judge Roman denied Defendants’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice because they did not provide required notice to pro se Plaintiff Angelo Carzoglio.
The ruling directly affected Defendants Sergeant Vincent Paul, Officer Deidre Carroll, and Sergeant John Rhodes by requiring them to refile their summary-judgment motion with the required notice. It also protected Plaintiff Angelo Carzoglio’s opportunity to respond as a self-represented litigant.
What happened
In Carzoglio v. Paul, Defendants Sergeant Vincent Paul, Officer Deidre Carroll, and Sergeant John Rhodes asked the court to enter summary judgment against Angelo Carzoglio, who was representing himself. The defendants did not serve the special notice required when a represented party seeks summary judgment against someone without a lawyer.
The court said it was unclear whether Carzoglio understood what summary judgment required, including the need to submit evidence disputing the defendants’ facts. Although Carzoglio filed opposition papers, his response did not include the required response to the defendants’ statement of undisputed facts or sworn affidavits.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the defendants’ motion without prejudice and allowed them to file it again after complying with the required notice rules. The court set new deadlines for the defendants’ motion papers, Carzoglio’s opposition, and the defendants’ reply.
The detailed version
- Carzoglio v. Paul · No. 7:17-cv-03651-NSR
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
Defendants Sergeant Vincent Paul, Officer Deidre Carroll, and Sergeant John Rhodes moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a case without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute about facts important to the outcome. Plaintiff Angelo Carzoglio was proceeding without a lawyer.
Notice requirement
The court explained that, in the Second Circuit, a district court generally cannot grant summary judgment against a self-represented litigant unless the litigant was warned about the consequences of failing to respond, received equivalent notice from the opposing party, or clearly understood the nature and consequences of summary judgment. Local Civil Rule 56.2 requires a represented party moving for summary judgment against a self-represented party to serve a separate notice containing the relevant federal and local rules.
The defendants served and filed a standard notice of motion for summary judgment, but they did not serve Carzoglio with the notice and statement required by Local Rule 56.2. Carzoglio did submit opposition papers, but the court said that filing a response alone did not establish that he understood the summary-judgment process. His opposition did not properly respond to the defendants’ statement of undisputed facts under Local Rule 56.1 and did not include sworn affidavits.
Ruling
The court DENIED the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice with leave to refile in compliance with Local Rule 56.2. The court did not decide the underlying claims or whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
The court ordered the defendants to serve compliant moving papers and certify compliance by November 7,
- Carzoglio’s opposition was due December 22, 2022, and the defendants’ reply was due January 6,
- The defendants were also directed to file all motion papers on January 6,
- The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail the order to Carzoglio.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.