Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-11111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Bright v. Annucci, Judge Roman denied reconsideration and appeal certification but granted Bright more time to oppose dismissal motions.
Willie Bright and the defendants in his pending constitutional-rights action were affected. Bright’s request to add later retaliation allegations was denied, while his deadline to oppose the defendants’ dismissal motions was extended.
What happened
In Bright v. Annucci, Willie Bright, representing himself, brought constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law based on events at Green Haven Correctional Facility. He asked to add later retaliation allegations from other facilities to the case.
The court denied Bright’s request to reconsider its refusal to allow those additional allegations and denied his request to certify an immediate appeal. The court found that the later events were not sufficiently connected to the original claims. It also denied further reconsideration of that decision.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Bright’s request for more time to respond to the defendants’ pending dismissal motions. Bright’s opposition papers were due to be served by October 23, 2023, and the defendants’ replies were due by November 13, 2023. The court stated that this would be the final extension.
The detailed version
- Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci · No. 7:18-cv-11111
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
Willie Bright, who represented himself, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. His claims arose from his incarceration at Green Haven Correctional Facility and included excessive force, inadequate medical care, retaliation, and failure to protect him.
In an earlier order, the court dismissed some claims without prejudice and allowed other claims to proceed. The court allowed Bright to file a second amended complaint. Bright later sought permission to file a supplemental complaint containing allegations that officials at other correctional facilities were retaliating against him for refusing to dismiss this lawsuit. The court previously denied permission to file that supplemental complaint and denied several requests to reconsider that decision.
Motion for Reconsideration
Bright again asked the court to reconsider its refusal to allow the supplemental complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) permits a party to add events that occurred after the original pleading when those events are connected to the original allegations.
The court denied the motion. It stated that the proposed allegations concerned retaliation for filing the lawsuit, rather than the underlying misconduct alleged in the second amended complaint. The court found that the only connection between the two sets of allegations was Bright’s claim that the later retaliation was prompted by his lawsuit. The second amended complaint remained the operative complaint.
Motion to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal
Bright also sought permission to appeal the orders refusing to allow the supplemental pleadings before the case ended. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal that could materially advance the litigation.
The court denied certification. It found that reversal would not end the case, Bright had not shown that an immediate appeal would significantly affect the litigation, and the applicable rules were settled. The court also found that an immediate appeal would prolong, rather than simplify, the pleadings stage.
Extension of Time and Disposition
The court granted Bright’s request for an extension of time to oppose the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. It set October 23, 2023, as the deadline for Bright to serve his opposition papers and November 13, 2023, as the deadline for the defendants to serve their replies and file the remaining motion papers. The court stated that it would not entertain another extension request and could treat the motions as fully submitted if Bright did not timely serve his opposition or show good cause for not doing so.
Judge Nelson S. Roman therefore denied Bright’s motions for reconsideration and to certify an interlocutory appeal, granted his motion for an extension of time, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the specified motions and mail Bright copies of the order and supplemental complaint.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.