Brock v. CVS Corporation

Background

Terrell K. Brock, who was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, brought this action on May 16, 2022. The opinion refers to earlier orders that set out additional procedural history. In a December 7, 2022 order, the court extended Brock’s deadline to file a third amended complaint to January 23, 2023, and directed him to name all defendants, including officers newly identified by the White Plains Law Department.

The court received Brock’s third amended complaint on December 19, 2022. The complaint did not name the newly identified officers. Brock also sent a letter stating that he was unsure whether he had included all six officers’ names.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered Brock to file a fourth amended complaint by January 23, 2023. It directed him to list the full names of all defendants, including White Plains Police Officers Beall, Dipaterio, Glynn, Horgan, Levito, and Schneider. The fourth amended complaint must completely replace, rather than supplement, the third amended complaint, so Brock must include all information necessary for his claims in the new filing.

Because Brock was proceeding without paying the filing fee, 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 fourth amended complaint, the court would direct the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for the newly identified defendants and provide the Marshals Service with the materials needed for service. The court clarified that Brock did not need to take any action to serve the defendants.

The court stayed Brock’s service deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) until further order. It also stayed the time for all parties to answer, file motions, or otherwise respond to the complaints and any cross-claims. The court stated that it would set a new service deadline after receiving the fourth amended complaint.

Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition and Significance

This order addressed case administration and amendment of the pleadings. It did not decide the merits of Brock’s underlying claims. The opinion does not state the factual basis or legal theories of those claims beyond the complaint form’s reference to alleged violations of federal constitutional rights.

Judge Briccetti ordered a fourth amended complaint, stayed the service and response deadlines, and denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order.