Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci

Background

Willie Bright brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of constitutional rights. His claims concerned his incarceration at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The operative pleading was his Second Amended Complaint.

The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison for general pretrial matters. Bright filed a motion seeking more time to amend and permission to consolidate a supplemental action. Judge Davison granted the motion only to the extent that Bright could move to amend or supplement his complaint by January 28, 2022. The court emphasized that this permission allowed Bright to file a motion; it did not authorize filing the supplemental complaint without further review.

Bright later filed a document titled “Supplemental Complaint.” After a hearing and review of the parties’ papers, Judge Davison denied Bright’s motion to file it. This court treated Judge Davison’s decision as a report and recommendation, meaning a recommendation subject to review by the district judge. In a December 27, 2022 Opinion and Order, this court independently reviewed Bright’s motion and denied it as well.

Reason for Denial

The proposed supplemental complaint included new allegations of retaliation nearly five years after the events in the Second Amended Complaint and at a different correctional facility in a different judicial district. The court found that the only common link was Bright’s conclusory allegation that the later actions were retaliation for filing the earlier lawsuit. The court therefore concluded that the proposed allegations had little relation to the existing complaint.

The court explained that it had already reviewed Bright’s new evidence and arguments. Although it could have reviewed Judge Davison’s decision under the more deferential “clear error” standard used for certain nondispositive pretrial matters, the court had instead conducted a fresh, or “de novo,” review of Bright’s motion. The court stated that Bright presented no new arguments in his January 26, 2023 objection.

Disposition

Judge Roman overruled Bright’s objection to the December 27, 2022 Opinion and Order and again denied Bright’s motion to file the Supplemental Complaint. The court stated that the Second Amended Complaint remains the operative complaint. It also reiterated that, to the extent Bright seeks to assert new claims arising several years later and at a different facility, his remedy is to commence a new, separate action. The opinion does not decide the merits of those proposed new claims.