Illescas v. Annucci

Background

Silvio R. Illescas, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. In a December 7, 2022 Opinion and Order, the court dismissed his complaint and allowed him to amend claims that had been dismissed without prejudice. The court warned that failing to file an amended complaint on time or show good cause would result in dismissal with prejudice of those claims. The court later granted three extensions.

Illescas filed an Amended Complaint on July 31, 2023. It added Nicolet T. Thompson; John Doe Correctional Officers #1, #2, #3, and #4; Dr. Mohamme; Dr. Odenlyl; Susanna Nayshuler; and Dr. Kim. It did not include claims previously asserted against Anthony J. Annucci, Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Daniel E. Laurie, Sajin A. Pillaj, Jesse M. Wolstein, Dr. Bruce R. Gendron, Hector Ojeda-Martinez, Sehrish Shahid, and Dr. Robert U. Mmereole. The court therefore treated those previously asserted claims, which had been dismissed without prejudice, as dismissed with prejudice.

Motion for appointment of counsel

Illescas later wrote that he filed the Amended Complaint quickly to avoid missing the deadline and did not have enough time to ask for help reviewing it. He said he had personal medical records supporting his allegations and stated that he was on a waiting list for surgery at an outside hospital. He asked the court to appoint volunteer counsel and to consider the defendants omitted from his Amended Complaint. The court also noted that New York Legal Assistance Group had helped him draft the Amended Complaint.

The court explained that it may ask attorneys on its volunteer panel to represent an indigent person in a civil case, but it cannot require an attorney to do so. The court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance, then considers factors such as the person’s ability to obtain representation, the difficulty of investigating the facts, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for professional cross-examination.

The court denied Illescas’s request for volunteer counsel, without prejudice to renewing it later. It stated that the case remained at the pleading stage, that it could not conclude Illescas was unable to proceed without assistance, that it could not determine that his position showed a strong chance of success, and that the legal issues were not particularly complex.

Motion for reconsideration

The court treated Illescas’s letter as a motion to reconsider its order dismissing with prejudice the claims against Annucci, Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Laurie, Pillaj, Wolstein, Ojeda-Martinez, Shahid, and Mmereole. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent serious injustice.

The court understood Illescas to be seeking another opportunity to amend his pleadings because he had mistakenly omitted the claims from his Amended Complaint. It stated that the existence of his medical records did not address the deficiencies identified in the earlier order; what mattered was whether he intended to address those deficiencies. Considering his self-represented status and the preference for resolving disputes on their merits, the court granted the motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

The court vacated its prior order at ECF No. 121 dismissing with prejudice the previously asserted claims against Annucci, Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Laurie, Pillaj, Wolstein, Ojeda-Martinez, Shahid, and Mmereole. It granted Illescas leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, but only to include claims alleged in the Amended Complaint or claims previously asserted against those listed defendants. It did not grant leave to add new claims. The court stated that the Second Amended Complaint would replace the earlier complaints and required Illescas to include all allegations he wanted the court to consider. The filing deadline was October 27, 2023, and the court stated that it would not consider further extension requests.

The court denied without prejudice to renewal the defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). All claims previously asserted against Dr. Bruce R. Gendron remained dismissed with prejudice because Illescas had disclaimed further prosecution against him. Finding no just reason for delay, the court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Gendron’s favor. Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed the Clerk to terminate the defendants’ motion and mail Illescas a copy of the order and the earlier opinion.