Hibbert v. The State of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-08257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hibbert v. City of New York, Judge Woods allowed possible amendment, kept the original complaint active otherwise, and denied appeal IFP status.
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
- Hibbert v. The State of New York · No. 1:22-cv-08257
- Gregory Woods
- 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.