Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci

Background

Judge Wang previously issued a report recommending dismissal of Dr. Muhammad’s initial complaint while allowing him to amend for the limited purpose of pleading facts showing discriminatory intent or a violation of a fundamental right in connection with defendants’ refusal to provide a substitute cane on December 9, 2017. Judge Daniels later adopted that recommendation.

Dr. Muhammad filed an amended complaint on July 6, 2020. He then filed numerous documents seeking a default judgment. Because the docket contained many filings that had not advanced the case and it was unclear which complaint was operative, the court ordered defendants to respond. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 17, 2022. Dr. Muhammad received an extension until June 30, 2022, to respond.

The Filing at Issue

On June 28, 2022, Dr. Muhammad filed another document titled “Motion for Default Judgment.” The document appeared to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss, but it also sought a $122 million default judgment against all defendants.

Ruling

To the extent the filing was a new motion for default judgment, the court denied it. The court cited the defendants’ active participation in the case as a reason default was not warranted, even if their motion to dismiss had been filed late. The court stated that it would consider the filing in connection with defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The court gave Dr. Muhammad until December 19, 2022, to file additional papers opposing the motion to dismiss. Any such papers had to identify themselves as opposition to that motion. The Clerk was directed to close docket entries 82 and 83 and mail the order to Dr. Muhammad, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer. The order also reminded Dr. Muhammad to address opposing parties, lawyers, and court staff with civility and professionalism. The order did not rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss.