Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-11111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Bright v. Annucci: Judge Roman denied reconsideration, pro bono counsel, and injunction requests but granted more time to oppose dismissal motions.
Willie Bright and the defendants in his § 1983 action were affected. Bright did not receive reconsideration, pro bono counsel, or the requested injunction, but received a briefing extension and copies of specified case documents; the New York Attorney General’s Office received response and document-production directives.
What happened
In Bright v. Annucci, Willie Bright, representing himself, asked the Southern District of New York to reconsider earlier decisions, appoint a free lawyer, stop prison officials from taking his legal papers, and extend the deadline for responding to defendants’ requests to dismiss his case.
The court denied reconsideration and kept Bright’s Second Amended Complaint as the operative complaint. It also denied a lawyer without prejudice to renewing that request after the dismissal motions are resolved, and denied the requested injunction. The court directed the New York Attorney General’s Office to respond to Bright’s harassment allegations and provide him copies of specified case documents.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Bright’s request for an extension of time. Bright’s opposition papers were due to be served by December 7, 2023, and defendants’ replies by December 22, 2023; the court called this the final extension.
The detailed version
- Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci · No. 7:18-cv-11111
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
Willie Bright brought this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations connected to his incarceration at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The court was considering Bright’s letters and motions dated September 19, September 25, and October 11, 2023. His requests included reconsideration of earlier decisions, appointment of pro bono counsel, an extension of the briefing schedule for defendants’ dismissal motions, and an injunction against prison officials whom Bright alleged were taking his legal documents.
A footnote states that Bright also appeared to ask for help pursuing claims concerning a prior state criminal conviction. The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction over that conviction and any related petition for release from custody, and therefore lacked authority to assist him on that matter.
Rulings on Bright’s Requests
The court denied Bright’s motion to reconsider earlier decisions denying his requests to file a supplemental complaint and to certify an immediate appeal. The court stated that Bright had not identified a reason to depart from those decisions. The court considered the Second Amended Complaint to be the operative complaint.
The court also denied Bright’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renew when discovery begins, after resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court explained that Bright’s case remained at the pleading stage because of the extended dispute over supplemental pleadings. The court had previously appointed counsel, but that attorney later obtained permission to withdraw.
The court denied Bright’s motion for an injunction against prison officials at Auburn Correctional Facility. It nevertheless directed the New York Attorney General’s Office to file a letter by November 1, 2023, responding to Bright’s allegations of ongoing harassment, including the alleged taking of his legal documents. The court also directed that office to provide Bright with copies of specified court orders and filings by October 25, 2023, and to file proof that it had done so.
The court granted Bright’s motion for an extension of time to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. Bright’s opposition papers had to be served, but not filed, by December 7,
- Defendants’ reply papers had to be served by December 22,
- The defendants were directed to file all motion papers, including Bright’s papers, on December 22,
- The court required physical and electronic courtesy copies and stated that this was the final extension for Bright to serve opposition papers.
Disposition
This order addressed motions concerning reconsideration, counsel, an injunction, document production, and scheduling. It did not decide the merits of Bright’s underlying constitutional claims or defendants’ motions to dismiss. Judge Nelson S. Roman ordered service of the order on Bright and directed the Clerk to terminate the specified motions from the docket.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.