Williams v. Vaccaro
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-03548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Williams v. Vaccaro, Judge McMahon denied naming two late-added officers, restored one claim against Vaccaro, and set a July 14, 2023 service deadline.
Shamark Williams’s claims against Detective Jason Ramirez and Detective Michael Dazi were dismissed with prejudice, while his malicious-prosecution claim against Michael Vaccaro was restored subject to service by July 14, 2023. Williams’s other claims against Vaccaro remained dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Williams v. Vaccaro, Shamark Williams asked to change his complaint to name Detective Jason Ramirez and Detective Michael Dazi, who had been identified as John Doe defendants. The court said Williams’s former lawyers received their names in January 2020 but did not amend the complaint before ending their representation.
The court denied permission to add Ramirez and Dazi because Williams did not act diligently before the deadline for his claims expired. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against those two officers. The court also left in place the dismissal with prejudice of Williams’s other claims against Michael Vaccaro because those claims were filed or served too late.
Judge Colleen McMahon vacated the earlier dismissal only as to Williams’s malicious-prosecution claim against Vaccaro, restoring that claim with 44 days remaining under the deadline. The court required Williams to serve Vaccaro by July 14, 2023 and then notify the court whether service occurred.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Vaccaro · No. 1:19-cv-03548
- Colleen McMahon
- May 31, 2023
Background
Shamark Williams had sued Michael Vaccaro and two officers identified in the complaint as John Does. The opinion identifies those officers as Detective Jason Ramirez and Detective Michael Dazi, who allegedly transported Williams from the 33rd Precinct to Harlem Hospital on January 12, 2018. Williams’s former lawyers, The Brill Group, received the officers’ names in discovery on or about January 30, 2020. They were not relieved as counsel until November 17, 2020, and they did not amend the complaint to name the officers.
Williams later represented himself after unsuccessfully trying to find new counsel. He moved for permission to amend the complaint on November 3, 2022. The court stated that the limitations period—the deadline for bringing the claims—had expired for the claims against the two officers on or about September 1, 2021, even without an additional 228-day COVID-related extension. The court found that Williams had not acted diligently in identifying and naming the officers before that deadline. It also noted that Williams’s former lawyers’ failure to amend promptly did not justify reviving the time-barred claims against the officers.
Rulings
The court denied Williams’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to name Ramirez and Dazi. It dismissed with prejudice the claims asserted against those two officers.
The court also addressed an earlier order that had dismissed all claims against Vaccaro with prejudice. It vacated that order only insofar as it dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim, identified as Count Six. The court stated that the claim had been dismissed before its limitations period expired and that 44 days remained on that period as of May 31, 2023. The court did not vacate the earlier dismissal of Williams’s other claims against Vaccaro; those claims remained dismissed with prejudice because they were time-barred and Vaccaro had not been properly served before the applicable deadlines.
Required next step stated by the court
The court restored the malicious-prosecution claim against Vaccaro in the condition it was in when it was dismissed. It directed Williams to obtain a summons and serve Vaccaro by the close of business on Friday, July 14, 2023, including at Vaccaro’s current place of employment, the 33rd Precinct if appropriate. Williams also had to tell the court whether service was completed. Judge Colleen McMahon stated that a new conference would be scheduled if service occurred by that date.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.