McPhee v. Laino
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-10095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McPhee v. Laino, Judge Briccetti allowed an amended complaint, ordered help identifying officers, stayed responses, and terminated the dismissal motion as moot.
Aasim McPhee, Sgt. N. Laino, the State of New York, the John/Jane Doe defendants, and defense counsel were affected. The defendants’ response deadline was stayed, and defense counsel was ordered to help identify and provide service information for additional correctional officers.
What happened
In McPhee v. Laino, Sgt. N. Laino moved to dismiss Aasim McPhee’s complaint for failing to state a claim. McPhee was representing himself and submitted an amended complaint with additional facts and new defendants.
The court agreed to consider the amended complaint. It directed defense counsel to identify other correctional officers mentioned in the amended complaint and provide service addresses or say whether counsel would accept service for them. The court also paused the defendants’ deadline to respond to the amended complaint.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti terminated Laino’s motion to dismiss as moot because McPhee had amended the complaint. The order did not decide whether McPhee’s claims were legally sufficient.
The detailed version
- McPhee v. Laino · No. 7:22-cv-10095
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 11, 2023
Background
Sgt. N. Laino moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court had set a deadline for Aasim McPhee, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, to oppose the motion.
McPhee instead submitted a letter and an amended complaint. The amended complaint added facts concerning the alleged assault by corrections staff and added the State of New York and John/Jane Doe 1-100 as defendants.
Court’s Actions
The court explained that district courts generally should give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to fix defects unless amendment would be futile. It granted McPhee’s request to amend and stated that it would consider the amended complaint.
Because McPhee identified additional correctional officers but did not provide their identities or addresses, the court directed defense counsel to file a letter identifying any other correctional officers referred to in the amended complaint and providing addresses where they could be served, or stating whether counsel would accept service for them. The deadline for all defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint was stayed pending a further court order.
Disposition
In light of the amended complaint, the court terminated Laino’s motion to dismiss as moot and directed the clerk to terminate that motion. The order did not rule on the merits or legal sufficiency of McPhee’s amended claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.