Stone 1 v. Annucci

Background

Six women who are or were incarcerated at four facilities operated by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision sued various supervisory officials, correction officers, and investigators. They brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violations of federal rights, and under New York law. The plaintiffs alleged that correction officers raped and sexually abused them.

The plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The proposed amendment would add Jane Stone #7 and Jane Stone #8 as plaintiffs on supervisory claims against Anthony J. Annucci and Jason Effman. It would also remove Jane Stone #4 because she died in February 2022 and no estate could be found to pursue her claim.

Procedural History and Legal Standard

The case-management plan set May 22, 2023, as the deadline to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs filed their motion on November 6, 2023, after that deadline. The court therefore applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires a party seeking a late amendment to show “good cause.” The court explained that good cause generally depends on the moving party’s diligence and whether the deadline could reasonably have been met despite that diligence.

The court also considered the general amendment principle under Rule 15(a)(2), which says that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. Relevant considerations include undue delay, bad faith, whether the amendment would be futile, and prejudice to the opposing party.

Court’s Analysis

The court found good cause for the late amendment. Although plaintiffs’ counsel should have asked for an extension before the deadline, counsel had been trying to locate an estate that could pursue Jane Stone #4’s claim. That effort had not succeeded, and the proposed complaint would remove her from the case.

The court also found that judicial economy and efficiency strongly favored amendment. Jane Stones #7 and #8 sought to bring claims against Annucci and Effman based on the same alleged policy failures involved in the existing claims. Allowing those claims to proceed in this case would avoid duplicative discovery in different federal districts and reduce the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

The court rejected the defendants’ stated reasons for opposing amendment as unpersuasive. It found that the defendants would not be prejudiced because discovery was still in an early stage, defense counsel had notice that an amendment was likely, and the defendants had previously agreed to litigate the supervisory claims against Annucci and Effman in this court.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. The plaintiffs were directed to file their Third Amended Complaint by Friday, May 17, 2024. The clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF 144. The opinion addressed amendment of the pleadings and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.