Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-03258
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci, Magistrate Judge Wang denied Plaintiff’s new default-judgment motion and treated his filing as opposition to Defendants’ pending dismissal motion.
Dr. Muhammad and the Defendants in the case, including Anthony J. Annucci. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Plaintiff.
What happened
In Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci, the court had allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint to allege facts about discriminatory intent or violation of a fundamental right involving Defendants’ refusal to provide a substitute cane. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint and several requests for default judgment.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff then filed another document seeking default judgment and requesting $122 million from all Defendants. The court found that the filing appeared to oppose the motion to dismiss, while also seeking a new default judgment.
Magistrate Judge Wang denied the new default-judgment request, treated the filing as connected to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, and gave Plaintiff until December 19, 2022, to submit additional opposition papers. The order did not decide Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci · No. 1:19-cv-03258
- Ona Wang
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
The court stated that this amended order superseded an earlier order. A prior recommendation, later adopted by Judge Daniels, had recommended dismissing the initial complaint while allowing Plaintiff to amend for the limited purpose of alleging facts showing discriminatory intent or a violation of a fundamental right concerning Defendants’ refusal to provide a substitute cane on December 9, 2017.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 6, 2020. He then filed numerous documents seeking default judgment. After directing Defendants to respond to the complaint, the court received Defendants’ motion to dismiss on March 17, 2022. Plaintiff received an extension to respond through June 30, 2022.
Ruling
On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed another document titled “Motion for Default Judgment.” The filing appeared to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss but also requested a $122 million default judgment against all Defendants. The court denied the filing to the extent it sought a new default judgment, explaining that default was not warranted where Defendants had actively participated in the case.
The court stated that it would consider the filing in connection with Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff received an additional extension until December 19, 2022, to file other papers opposing that motion. The court instructed that any additional filings about the pending motion must identify themselves as opposition papers and be filed by that date.
Other Directions
The court reminded Plaintiff to treat opposing litigants, lawyers, and court staff civilly and professionally. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 82 and 83 and mail a copy of the order to Plaintiff, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer. The order did not rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.