Vidal v. The State of New York

Background

Joseph Vidal, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought this action on July 6, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants were identified as Don E. Venettozzi, Eric Gutwein, Wayne Carrol, and Bryan P. Anspach, all current or former employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial because the moving party contends that the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Notice required for a motion against a self-represented litigant

The court explained that, in the Second Circuit, a district court generally cannot grant summary judgment against a self-represented litigant unless the litigant was told about the consequences of failing to respond, received the required notice by another method, or clearly demonstrated an understanding of summary judgment and the need to submit evidence showing a genuine factual dispute. Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 56.2 requires a represented party moving for summary judgment against a self-represented party to serve and file a specified notice, along with the relevant summary-judgment rules.

Reasons for the ruling

The court found that the defendants had not served Vidal with the required Local Rule 56.2 notice and statement. Although the defendants’ notice of motion referred to a Rule 56.2 notice, no such notice appeared on the docket, and the court did not identify it among the courtesy copies it received. The defendants also had not filed an affidavit or declaration showing that they served Vidal with the required notice.

The court further found that the record did not clearly show that Vidal understood the nature of summary judgment or his burden in opposing it. Vidal had filed an opposition, a counterstatement under Local Civil Rule 56.1, and his own affidavit, but the docket did not contain the exhibits supporting his opposition. The court stated that the mere existence of a response does not automatically establish that a self-represented litigant understood the summary-judgment process.

Disposition and schedule

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice with leave to re-file in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules. The court also noted that additional exhibits, declarations, and the defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement had not been filed on the docket despite the court’s direction to file all motion papers. It ordered the defendants to serve compliant moving papers and certify compliance by August 8, 2023; required Vidal to serve opposition papers by September 7, 2023; and required the defendants to serve reply papers by September 22, 2023. The defendants were directed to file all served motion papers on September 22, 2023. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the clerk to terminate the motion and mail Vidal a copy of the order.