Williams v. Geraci et al
Filing
142
MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 122 Motion to Dismiss; For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' partial motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 122) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against Nurse Pat Donnadio, Nurse Laird Merrdel, and Nurse Kristen C erminaro are DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE Donnadio, Merrdel, and Cerminaro as defendants in this action and mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff. Given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Cour t certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is DENIED for purposes of an appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/10/2017. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
STOKER OLUKOTUN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
-against-
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-5742(JS)(ARL)
DR. VINCENT GERACI, CHARLES EWALD,
DEPUTY ALLEN SHAPIRO, NURSE PAT DONNADIO,
NURSE LAIRD MERRDEL, NURSE KRISTEN
CERMINARO, MARION WEBSTER, OFFICER ROBERT
“BOB” KOCH, SUFFOLK COUNTY, and
DEPUTY DOUGLAS MEHRMAN,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Stoker Olukotun Williams, pro se
Inmate No. 16A5064
Downstate Correctional Facility
121 Red Schoolhouse Road
P.O. Box F
Fishkill, NY 12524
For Defendants:
Brian C. Mitchell, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney
100 Veteran’s Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Currently pending before the Court is defendants Dr.
Vincent Geraci, Charles Ewald, Deputy Allen Shapiro, Nurse Pat
Donnadio, Nurse Laird Merrdel, Nurse Kristen Cerminaro, Marion
Webster, Officer Robert “Bob” Koch, Suffolk County, and Deputy
Douglas Mehrman’s (collectively, “Defendants”) partial motion to
dismiss plaintiff Stoker Olukotun Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) Second
Amended Complaint (“Defendants’ Motion”).
(Defs.’ Mot., Docket
Entry 122.)
For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is
GRANTED.
Briefly, on September 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion
for leave to amend his Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Amend”).
(Pl.’s Mot. to Amend, Docket Entry 60.)
Plaintiff sought to add
Deputy Sheriff Allen Shapiro (“Shapiro”), Deputy Sheriff Douglas
Mehrman, and Assistant County Attorney Chris Gatto (“ACA Gatto”)
as defendants in this action.
(See Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 2.)
Additionally, Plaintiff sought to assert a claim of “medical
negligence” against all Defendants and claims for “intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress,
harassment
and
sexual
harassment” against defendant Officer Robert “Bob” Koch.
(Pl.’s
Mot. to Amend at 2.)
On May 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
(Order, Docket Entry 114.)
Judge Lindsay granted Plaintiff’s
motion to the extent he sought to add Shapiro and Mehrman as
defendants and “add [Nurse Marion Webster] to the caption in place
of ‘Jane Doe Nurse.’”
(Order at 1 n.1; 4.)
Judge Lindsay denied
Plaintiff’s request to add ACA Gatto as a defendant as well as his
request to assert a claim for “medical negligence.”
7.)
(Order at 4-
Finally, Judge Lindsay directed Plaintiff to file and serve
“a revised second amended complaint consistent with th[e] order.”
(Order at 7.)
Judge Lindsay noted that “[s]ince the amended
2
pleading simply adds the names of the deputies, it should not
require additional discovery.”
(Order at 7.)
On June 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed his second Amended
Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”).
Docket Entry 123.)
(Sec. Am. Compl.,
In addition to including Webster, Shapiro, and
Mehrman as defendants, the Second Amended Complaint also names
Nurse
Pat
Donnadio,
Nurse
Cerminaro as defendants.
Laird
Merrdel,
and
Nurse
(Sec. Am. Compl. at 1.)1
Kristin
Further, the
Second Amended Complaint contains a “motion to compel,” a request
for log book pages, and an affidavit addressing Judge Lindsay’s
Order denying his request for correction log book pages and her
Order determining his Motion to Amend.
(Sec. Am. Compl. at 41-
51.) On June 29, 2016, Defendants filed their Motion and requested
“that the claims against Nurses Donnadio, Merrdel and Cerminaro
not be recognized by this court and be declared a nullity as the
plaintiff was not granted permission to make such an amendment.”
(Defs.’ Mot. at 1.)
The Court construes Judge Lindsay’s Order as providing
Plaintiff with narrow leave to amend his Amended Complaint to add
Webster, Shapiro, and Mehrman to the caption.
Order.)
will
(See generally
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and the Court
not
consider
any
claims
against
Donnadio,
Merrdel,
The Court will utilize the Electronic Case Filing pagination
when referring to the Second Amended Complaint.
1
3
or
Cerminaro. Additionally, the Court sua sponte declines to consider
the discovery requests set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint.
(See Sec. Am. Compl. at 41-51.)
While the Court is
mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status, any discovery requests or
other applications must be made separately by motion and are not
properly included in the Second Amended Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ partial motion to
dismiss (Docket Entry 122) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims
against Nurse Pat Donnadio, Nurse Laird Merrdel, and Nurse Kristen
Cerminaro are DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to
TERMINATE Donnadio, Merrdel, and Cerminaro as defendants in this
action and mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se
Plaintiff.
Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore
in forma pauperis status is DENIED for purposes of an appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8
L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
January
10 , 2017
Central Islip, New York
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?