Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 13, 2023

Hibbert v. The State of New York

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:22-cv-08257
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Hibbert v. City of New York, Judge Woods allowed possible amendment, kept the original complaint active otherwise, and denied appeal IFP status.

Who this affects

Conroy Hibbert, Jr., the City of New York, and the two individuals Plaintiff may seek to add to an amended complaint.

What happened

In Conroy Hibbert, Jr. v. The City of New York, the court addressed how the case would proceed after the City’s law department identified two individuals whom Hibbert might add to an amended complaint concerning the Department of Corrections’ COVID policies.

The court gave Hibbert 30 days to file an amended complaint adding those individuals. If he did not do so, his original complaint, which was then solely against the City of New York, would remain the active complaint. The court did not decide the underlying claims.

Judge Gregory H. Woods also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Hibbert a copy of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hibbert v. The State of New York · No. 1:22-cv-08257
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Feb. 13, 2023

Background

The New York City Law Department filed a letter identifying two individuals whom Plaintiff might seek to add to an amended complaint as responsible for the Department of Corrections’ COVID policies. The Law Department represented that it had also sent the letter to Plaintiff. The letter further stated that, if one individual were named, the Law Department would request authority to accept service on that person’s behalf and waive service; it provided a service address for the other individual.

The order states that Plaintiff’s original complaint was then solely against the City of New York.

What the Court Ordered

The court gave Plaintiff 30 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint adding the individuals identified in the Law Department’s letter. If Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by that deadline, the original complaint would be treated as the active complaint in the case.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the order.

Effect of the Order

This order addressed amendment of the pleadings and appeal-related fee-waiver status. It did not decide the merits of Plaintiff’s underlying claims. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.