Albritton v. Fredella
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-04512
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Albritton v. Fredella, Judge Subramanian granted amendment, dismissed the Doe defendants, and denied the State Defendants’ motion as moot.
Jemal Albritton; the State Defendants; Lawrence Fredella; the newly added defendants; and the Jane Doe and John Doe defendants.
What happened
In Albritton v. Fredella, incarcerated plaintiff Jemal Albritton, representing himself, sued New York State Board of Parole officials and former state prosecutor Lawrence Fredella. The State Defendants had moved to dismiss the original complaint.
Albritton opposed that motion and asked to file an amended complaint, which added Michael Corley, M. Soto, Demosthenes, the New York City Department of Probation, and Anna M. Bermudez as defendants. The court excused the late filing and allowed the amendment.
Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the amended complaint as to the Jane Doe and John Doe defendants because claims against those defendants had already been dismissed with prejudice. He denied the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot and without prejudice to refiling after service of the amended complaint, and also denied Fredella’s request for more time as moot.
The detailed version
- Albritton v. Fredella · No. 1:22-cv-04512
- Subramanian
- Sept. 14, 2023
Background
Jemal Albritton, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action against various New York State Board of Parole officials, identified collectively as the State Defendants, and former state prosecutor Lawrence Fredella. The State Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court ordered Albritton to respond by August 1, 2023. He mailed an opposition and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, with a proposed amended complaint, and the documents were received on August 3, 2023.
Amendment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court also noted that people proceeding without lawyers should generally be given a fair opportunity to amend. It excused the late filing because Albritton was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer. The court stated that the State Defendants could argue that amendment would be futile in a later motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted Albritton’s motion for leave to amend and directed the Clerk to docket the proposed amended complaint without its exhibits. The amended complaint added Michael Corley, M. Soto, Demosthenes, the New York City Department of Probation, and Anna M. Bermudez as defendants. The court directed issuance of an amended summons for those defendants and delivery of the required papers to the Marshals Service for service.
Other Dispositions
The court dismissed the amended complaint as to the Jane Doe and John Doe defendants. It stated that these were the same Doe defendants identified in the original complaint and that the claims against them had already been dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot and without prejudice to refiling after service of the amended complaint. The judge also denied Fredella’s request for an extension of time to oppose Albritton’s motion as moot. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed docket entries.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.