Brock v. CVS Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Judge Briccetti extended Brock’s amendment deadline and stayed service and response deadlines.
Terrell K. Brock, the defendants, the White Plains Law Department, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. Brock received more time to file a third amended complaint; the newly identified officers were to be included as defendants; and service and response deadlines remained on hold.
What happened
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Terrell K. Brock was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. The court had previously ordered the White Plains Law Department to provide information and had directed Brock to file a third amended complaint. The law department identified additional officers connected to Brock’s arrests and agreed to accept service for several officers.
The court extended Brock’s deadline to file the third amended complaint to January 23, 2023. It required the complaint to list the full names of all defendants, including Officers Beall, Dipaterio, Glynn, Horgan, Levito, and Schneider, and explained that the new complaint would replace the existing second amended complaint. The court also kept the service deadline and the parties’ deadlines to respond to the second amended complaint or cross-claims on hold.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti stated that, after receiving and screening the new complaint, the court would arrange for the clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the newly identified defendants. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brock permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
Terrell K. Brock filed this action on May 16, 2022, while proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. The court’s November 21, 2022, order required the White Plains Law Department (WPLD) to take specified steps, required Brock to file a third amended complaint by December 21, 2022, paused Brock’s deadline to serve Officer Jose Luis Formoso, and paused all parties’ deadlines to respond to the second amended complaint and any cross-claims.
On December 5, 2022, WPLD filed letters, affidavits of service, and police records concerning Brock’s April 3 and April 13, 2020 arrests. WPLD stated that it would accept service for Officers Beall, Formoso, Schneider, and Vanderwalker. It also identified four additional officers connected to the April 13 arrest—Officer Levito, Officer Dipaterio, Officer Horgan, and Officer Glynn—and stated that the City of White Plains would accept service for the White Plains officers involved. The court noted that WPLD had previously failed to comply with a May 20, 2022 order, but concluded that WPLD had now complied. The court criticized WPLD’s filings as confusing and haphazard.
Order
The court extended Brock’s deadline to file a third amended complaint to January 23, 2023. The court required that complaint to list the full names of all defendants, including White Plains Police Officers Beall, Dipaterio, Glynn, Horgan, Levito, and Schneider. Brock was instructed to use the attached complaint form and to include all information necessary to support his claims because the third amended complaint would completely replace, rather than supplement, the second amended complaint.
Because Brock was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. After receiving and screening the third amended complaint, the court would direct the clerk to issue summonses for the newly identified defendants and provide the Marshals Service with the materials needed for service. The order clarified that Brock did not need to take action to serve the defendants.
The court stayed Brock’s service deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) until a later order and stated that it would set a new service deadline after receiving the third amended complaint. The deadlines for all parties to answer, file motions, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint and cross-claims remained stayed. The court 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 proceed without prepaying fees for that appeal.
Disposition and scope
This order addressed case-management, amendment, and service matters. It did not decide the merits of Brock’s underlying claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.