Roland v. Rivera et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Vacate 9 Judgment ; granting 11 Motion to Amend/Correct ; transferring this action to the Western District of New York. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 6/6/07. (rjb, )

Download PDF
Roland v. Rivera et al Doc. 13 Case 9:07-cv-00230-FJS-DEP Document 13 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ THOMAS ROLAND, III, Plaintiff, v. I. RIVERA, Superintendent, Coxsackie Correctional Facility; and MICHAEL BENSON, Superintendent, Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES THOMAS ROLAND, III 04-B-2754 Coxsackie Correctional Facility Box 999 Coxsackie, New York 12051 Plaintiff pro se SCULLIN, Senior Judge 9:07-CV-230 (FJS/DEP) MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Thomas Roland commenced this 1983 civil rights action on March 2, 2007. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated March 13, 2007, this Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint because his original complaint did not demonstrate the personal involvement of each Defendant in the alleged violation of his constitutional rights.1 See Dkt. No. 4. On March 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 1 In its March 13, 2007 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's in (continued...) Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:07-cv-00230-FJS-DEP Document 13 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 6 See Dkt. No. 6. By Order dated April 6, 2007, this Court found that Plaintiff's amended complaint failed to remedy the defects in his original complaint. See Dkt. No. 8. Therefore, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the terms of the Court's March 13, 2007 Order. See id. On April 6, 2007, the Court entered judgment against Plaintiff, dismissing this action without prejudice in accordance with the Court's March 13, 2007 Order. See Dkt. No. 9. Currently before the Court are a letter from Plaintiff, which the Court construes as a request for relief from the judgment entered against him, see Dkt. No. 10, and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his amended complaint, see Dkt. No. 11. II. DISCUSSION A. Request for relief from judgment Plaintiff requests that the Court reopen this case so that he can file an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 11. He asks that, in reviewing his request, "this court take into consideration that [he is] a prisoner who is mentally incapacitated." See id.2 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the following six grounds upon which the Court may rely to relieve a party from a final judgment or order: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been (...continued) forma pauperis application. See Dkt. No. 4 at 5. With his proposed amended pleading, Plaintiff has submitted a letter from the Unit Chief of Coxsackie Correctional Facility Mental Health Unit dated March 1, 2007, outlining Plaintiff's mental health diagnosis and medications. See Dkt. No. 11 at 12. -22 1 Case 9:07-cv-00230-FJS-DEP Document 13 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 3 of 6 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). "In deciding a Rule 60(b) motion, a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigant's claims on the merits against the policy in favor of finality." Kotlicky v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 817 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); see also Welkovics v. Hebrew Academy of Capital Dist., No. 93-CV-1465, 1995 WL 760726, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 1995) (quotation and other citation omitted). The Court finds that, under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff's pro se status and his asserted mental incapacity "justify[] relief from the operation of the judgment," Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), and, therefore, grants Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment. See Rule 60(b)(6). B. Motion to amend Having reopened this action, the Court may now properly review Plaintiff's motion to amend his amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 11. The proposed amended complaint names two new Defendants Dr. Joseph Liebergall and Dr. Brian Joseph and asserts that, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Erie County Holding Center, each of them was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See id.3 Since Plaintiff alleges that these newly-named Defendants were 3 In his proposed amended pleading, Plaintiff no longer names I. Rivera, Superintendent (continued...) -3- Case 9:07-cv-00230-FJS-DEP Document 13 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 4 of 6 personally involved in the alleged violation of his constitutional rights, the Court grants his motion to amend his amended complaint. Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to docket the proposed amended pleading as Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Finally, the Court notes that the acts about which Plaintiff complains in his second amended complaint relate to conduct that allegedly occurred, if at all, at Erie County Holding Center, which is located in the Western District of New York. Therefore, the Court hereby transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) ("[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought").4 III. CONCLUSION After carefully reviewing Plaintiff's submissions and the applicable law and for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Court's April 6, 2007 judgment is VACATED. The Clerk of the (...continued) of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, or Michael Benson, Superintendent, as Defendants. See id. Therefore, the Court will dismiss I. Rivera and Michael Benson as Defendants in this action. Plaintiff's motion to amend also includes a request for appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No. 11 at 1. Since the Court is transferring this matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, the Court leaves the determination of that request to the trasferee court. -44 3 Case 9:07-cv-00230-FJS-DEP Document 13 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 5 of 6 Court shall reopen this action and restore it to this Court's docket; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion to amend his amended complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file the proposed amended pleading as Plaintiff's second amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace in its entirety the previous amended complaint; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the docket to include "Dr. Joseph Liebergall, Erie County Forensic Mental Health Services," and "Dr. Brian, Joseph, Erie County Forensic Mental Health Services," as Defendants; and the Court further ORDERS that "I. Rivera" and "Michael Benson" are DISMISSED as Defendants in this action; and the Court further ORDERS that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall advise the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, in writing, of the entry of this Order and provide -5- Case 9:07-cv-00230-FJS-DEP Document 13 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 6 of 6 that official with a certified copy of this Order and of the docket sheet for this action, together with all of the information necessary for that official to access electronically the documents filed in this action; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 6, 2007 Syracuse, New York -6-

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?