Carattini v. Behun
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-09373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Carattini v. Behun, Judge Roman struck a moot opposition, denied counsel without prejudice, and denied amendment as moot while deeming the amended complaint operative.
Eric Cesar Carattini’s opposition was struck, his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice, and his motion to amend was denied as moot; Christopher Behun must respond to the amended complaint or seek leave to file a motion.
What happened
In Carattini v. Behun, Eric Cesar Carattini, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued Christopher Behun under a law allowing certain claims against state officials and under state law. The court had already denied Behun’s earlier motion to dismiss after allowing Carattini to file an amended complaint.
Carattini filed an opposition to the earlier motion, a request for appointed counsel, a motion to amend, and an amended complaint. The court struck the opposition because there was no longer an outstanding motion to oppose. It denied the request for counsel without prejudice, meaning Carattini may renew it later, and denied the motion to amend as moot because the amended complaint had already been filed.
Judge Nelson S. Roman deemed the amended complaint the operative complaint and directed Behun to answer it or seek permission to file a response motion by July 6, 2023. The order addressed these procedural matters without deciding the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Carattini v. Behun · No. 7:21-cv-09373
- Nelson Roman
- June 15, 2023
Background
Eric Cesar Carattini, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, sued Christopher Behun, identified in the order as a Senior Investigator with the New York State Police Drug Enforcement Task Force. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
Behun had filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on October 28, 2022. Carattini did not initially oppose that motion. After Carattini notified the court that he planned to oppose the motion, seek appointed counsel, move to amend, and file an amended complaint, the court denied Behun’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and allowed Carattini to amend. Carattini then filed all four papers on June 12, 2023.
Rulings
The court addressed each filing as follows:
- Opposition to the motion to dismiss: The court stated that it had already denied Behun’s motion after granting leave to amend. Because there was no outstanding motion for Carattini to oppose, the court found the opposition moot and struck it from the docket. - Motion to appoint counsel: The court denied the request without prejudice to renewal later in the case. It explained that the case was still at an early stage, discovery and summary-judgment motions had not occurred, and the court could not yet determine that Carattini could not handle the case without assistance or that his position showed a strong chance of success. The court also found that the legal issues did not appear particularly complex. - Motion to amend: The court denied the motion as moot because it had already granted Carattini permission to amend and Carattini had filed the amended complaint. The court deemed that amended complaint the operative complaint.
Next step ordered
The court directed Behun to answer the amended complaint or otherwise seek leave to move in response to it by July 6, 2023. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions for appointed counsel and to amend, and to mail the order to Carattini.
Effect of the order
The order resolved the listed procedural filings but did not decide the merits of Carattini’s § 1983 or state-law claims. The request for appointed counsel may be renewed later, and the amended complaint remains the pleading governing the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.