The opinion
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT it, BIRED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCH
DATE FILED: _ 12/12/2023 __
CARL BROWN,
Plaintiff, No. 19-CV-2296 (NSR)
-against- OPINION & ORDER
ANTHONY ANNUCCTI, et al,
Defendant.
NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge:
Carl Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced this action against the Defendants
on March 14, 2019. (Compl. at ECF No. 2). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend/Correct Amended Complaint (“Pltf.’s Mot.”). (ECF No. 177), seeking leave to file a
Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Mem. of L. in Support re: Motion to Amend/Correct
(“Pltf.’s Mem.”) p.1, at ECF No. 177). Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion. (see Mem. of L. in
Opposition re: Motion to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint (““Defs.’ Opp.”) at ECF No. 179).
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility. (Pltf.’s Mem p. 1). Plaintiff
initiated this action pro se, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Ud.) Plaintiff filed his Third
Amended Complaint (“TAC”), pursuant to this Court’s order (see Memo Endorsement at ECF No.
141), on June 29, 2022. (ECF No. 159). Subsequently, on August 10, 2022, pro bono counsel
appeared on Plaintiffs behalf. (See ECF No. 170-72). Counsel submitted Pltf.’s Mot. on March
15, 2023.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Rule 15
Once a pleading is amended, a party is required to obtain either the consent of the opposing
party or the court’s leave to further amend its pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“Rule 15”). Rule
15 directs courts to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.
The Supreme Court has directed the lower courts to “heed[]” Rule 15’s mandate, stating
that “[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). It is within a District Court’s discretion
whether to grant leave to amend, but to do so without “any justifying reason” is to abuse that
discretion. Id. That is, a District Court must have a “good reason” to deny a motion to amend, one
usually based on the factors listed in Forman. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184,
200 (2d Cir. 2007).
Rule 15’s permissive nature accords with this Circuit’s “strong preference” to resolve
disputes on the merits. Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec. LLC, 797 F.3d 160,
190 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 2018, 212-13 (2d Cir. 2011)).
Indeed, absent a showing of prejudice or bad faith, practice in this Circuit is to grant a motion to
amend. Block v. First Blood Associates, 988 F.2d 344, 350 (2d Cir. 1993).
DISCUSSION
Defendants fail to make a showing such that the Court has a “good reason” to deny Pltf.’s
Mot. McCarthy, 482 F.3d at 200. Defendants note numerous examples in the FAC that, in their
eyes, contain insufficient factual pleadings to make out a claim. (Defs.’ Opp. p.1). They also object
to reworked versions of claims in the FAC that the Court disposed of in a order pertaining to a
prior version of Plaintiff’s complaint and of raising claims Defendants allege are time-barred. (Id.
pp.1-3). In essence, then, the Defendants request that the Court dispose of Plaintiff’s claims in the
proposed FAC not on the merits but based on Rule 15. As noted above, doing so would contradict
this Circuit’s “strong preference” to resolve disputes on the merits. Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3
Ltd., 797 F.3d at 190.
Further, Defendants fail to make any showing that to grant Plaintiff’s motion would result
in prejudice or reward bad faith on the part of Plaintiff. Block, 988 F.2d at 350. Defendants make
no claims regarding prejudice. Most pertinently regarding potential bad faith, under the difficult
conditions presented by his incarceration, Plaintiff met this Court’s deadline, July 16, 2022, to file
the TAC by submitting a ten-page, handwritten document, with attachments and exhibits, on June
29, 2022. (see ECF Nos. 150, 159). Moreover, it is axiomatic in this Circuit that pro se plaintiffs
receive “special solicitude”. Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir.
2006). Though now represented by pro bono counsel, that solicitude undoubtedly weighs in favor
of granting Plaintiff’s request, absent a strong showing by Defendants of delinquency, bad faith,
or prejudicial effect.
As such, Defendants have failed to make out a “good reason” for this Court to deny
Plaintiff’s motion. McCarthy, 482 F.3d at 200. Indeed, Defendants themselves offer that the issues
they raise “may be best addressed through a motion to dismiss rather than a rejection of the FAC
. . . .” (Defs.’ Opp. p.3). This Court agrees.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to file his proposed Fourth Amended
Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is directed to file such Fourth Amended Complaint on or
before December 18, 2023. The Defendants are directed to answer, seek leave to move, or
otherwise respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint on or before January 8, 2024. The Clerk of
Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 177.
Dated: December 12, 2023 SO ORDERED:
White Plains, New York
NELSON S. ROMAN
United States District Judge