Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-08806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility, Judge Roman denied amendment and counsel requests but granted a factual-paragraph addition.
Shirley Dimps’s proposed additional claims and request for appointed counsel were denied; her existing Second Amended Complaint remained operative, and she was permitted to add one specified paragraph to its statement of facts.
What happened
In Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility, Shirley Dimps filed a Second Amended Complaint after the Court reopened the case to allow her to pursue Title VII claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. She also asked to add a paragraph to her facts, assert additional claims under disability, age-discrimination, and civil-rights laws, and receive free legal counsel.
The Court explained that the Second Circuit had already ruled that Dimps should not receive permission to bring the proposed disability, age-discrimination, and civil-rights claims against individual Department of Corrections supervisors or the Department. The Court also said the case was still at an early pleading stage and that the record did not show a strong likelihood of success, unusually complex legal issues, or an inability to proceed without counsel.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Dimps’s request to bring the proposed additional claims and denied her request for free legal counsel, while allowing her to renew the counsel request later. Judge Roman treated the Second Amended Complaint as the operative complaint and granted her request to add the specified paragraph to the statement of facts.
The detailed version
- Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility · No. 7:17-cv-08806
- Nelson Roman
- May 10, 2023
Background
The Second Circuit previously vacated part of an earlier judgment concerning Shirley Dimps’s proposed Title VII claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). It affirmed the dismissal of her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Taconic Correctional Facility, DOCCS, the New York State Department of Civil Service, and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. The Second Circuit also determined that Dimps had not shown that she could state valid claims under those laws against individual DOCCS supervisors.
The district court reopened the case and directed Dimps to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging Title VII claims against DOCCS. After extensions, Dimps filed that complaint on May 5, 2023. On May 8, she asked to add a paragraph to the statement of facts and separately sought permission to file a Third Amended Complaint asserting the previously rejected disability, age-discrimination, and Section 1981 claims against individual DOCCS supervisors and/or DOCCS. She also renewed her request for pro bono counsel, meaning free legal representation.
Request to Amend
The Court denied permission to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint. It relied on the Second Circuit’s prior ruling that Dimps should not be granted leave to amend to assert the proposed Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Section 1981 claims against individual DOCCS supervisors and/or DOCCS. The Court deemed the May 5 Second Amended Complaint the operative complaint, meaning the pleading governing the case. It granted Dimps’s request to add the paragraph identified in her May 8 letter, but warned that she could not continue amending her complaint in separate pieces.
Request for Counsel
The Court also denied Dimps’s renewed request for pro bono counsel. Applying the standards for appointing counsel to an unrepresented litigant, the Court considered whether her position appeared likely to have substance and whether other circumstances justified appointing counsel. The Court noted that Dimps had only recently filed her Second Amended Complaint, the defendants had not yet responded, and there was no indication at that stage of a strong chance of success, unusual legal complexity, or an inability to handle the case without assistance. The denial was expressly without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.
Disposition
The Court denied Dimps’s request to amend her pleadings to assert the proposed disability, age-discrimination, and Section 1981 violations against individual DOCCS supervisors and/or DOCCS. It also denied her request for pro bono counsel, without prejudice to renewal later, and granted her request to add the specified paragraph to the statement of facts. The order directed the Clerk to mail the order to Dimps, record service, and terminate the motion at ECF No. 98.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.