Iosilevich v. Walmart Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04757
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Iosilevich v. Walmart, Judge Briccetti dismissed claims against identified Doe defendants and required the remaining defendants to respond.
Ilya Feliksovich Iosilevich’s claims against the identified Doe defendants were dismissed, and those defendants were removed from the case. The remaining named defendants were required to respond to the original complaint by March 29, 2023. Fee-free status was denied for any appeal from the order.
What happened
Ilya Feliksovich Iosilevich, representing himself and without paying the filing fee, sued Walmart, Inc., several individuals, Westchester County, and unidentified defendants under federal civil-rights law and state law. The New York Attorney General’s Office and Walmart’s lawyer identified some of the previously unidentified defendants, and the court ordered Iosilevich to file an amended complaint naming them.
Iosilevich requested more time, and the court extended the deadline to March 1, 2023, while warning that there would be no further extensions. He did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore kept the original complaint as the operative complaint and dismissed the claims against the identified Doe defendants.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ordered all remaining named defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond by March 29, 2023. The court directed the Clerk to remove the specified Doe defendants from the case and denied fee-free status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Iosilevich v. Walmart Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-04757
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
Ilya Feliksovich Iosilevich, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Walmart, Inc.; Joseph Negron; Kevin P. Bruen; John T. Reicherter; Westchester County; John and Jane Doe troopers who allegedly assisted with his arrest; and two Jane Doe Walmart employees.
Westchester County had filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. The court later denied that motion without prejudice while awaiting an amended complaint. The New York Attorney General’s Office and Walmart’s counsel identified the Doe defendants, and the court ordered Iosilevich to file an amended complaint naming them by December 19, 2022. After Iosilevich requested additional time, the court extended the deadline to March 1, 2023, and stated that no further extensions would be granted. Iosilevich did not file an amended complaint.
Rulings
The court ordered that the original complaint remain the operative complaint. It dismissed Iosilevich’s claims against the John and Jane Doe defendants identified by the New York Attorney General’s Office and the Jane Doe defendants identified by Walmart’s counsel. The court instructed the Clerk to terminate Jane Doe, Jane Doe aka Biatriz, and John and Jane Doe 1-2 as defendants.
The court ordered all named defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the complaint by March 29, 2023. It stated that Iosilevich’s deadline to oppose any motion to dismiss would be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules unless the court ordered otherwise.
Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Iosilevich’s federal or state-law claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.