Turane v. The State of New York et al, No. 9:2020cv00184 - Document 14 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff must comply with the directives set forth in this Order within SIXTY days; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the docket report consistent with this Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, the April Order, and the original Complaint on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on May 5, 2020. (Notice of Compliance Deadline 7/6/2020){Copy served via regular mail on plaintiff, along with a copy of the # 1 Complaint and the # 11 April 7, 2020 Order}. (rep)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Turane v. The State of New York et al Doc. 14 Case 9:20-cv-00184-TJM-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TRUMAINE TURANE, Plaintiff, v. 9:20-CV-0184 (TJM/DJS) THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al. D Defendants. APPEARANCES: J TRUMAINE TURANE 13-R-2122 Plaintiff, Pro se Gouverneur Correctional Facility Scotch Settlement Road PO Box 480 Gouverneur, New York 13642 DANIEL J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION S Pro se Plaintiff Trumaine Turane (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 2 (“IFP Application”). By Decision and Order filed April 7, 2020 (the “April Order”), the Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and reviewed the sufficiency of the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Dkt. No. 11. On the basis of that review, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See id. In light of his pro se status, Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:20-cv-00184-TJM-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 4 Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to submit an Amended Complaint. See id. On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a submission in response to the April Order. Dkt. No. 13. II. DISCUSSION The filing of amended and supplemental pleadings is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party may amend, as of right, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after D service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. FED. R. CIV. P. 15. Local Rule 7.1(a)(4) further states that a “party shall not incorporate any portion of its prior pleading into the proposed amended pleading by reference.” N.D.N.Y.L.R. 7.1(a)(4). Rather, amended pleadings must be complete pleadings which will supersede the original pleading in all respects. Id. “One of the purposes of the requirement that an amended complaint be a complete pleading is to ensure that all J of the allegations asserted against the defendant(s) are contained in a single document, thereby reducing the likelihood that a party will overlook one or more allegations against him.” See Walker v. Fischer, 2012 WL 1029614, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012) (citation omitted). This requirement eliminates the confusing nature of “piecemeal” amended complaints. See Chapdelaine v. Keller, 1999 WL 34998130, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 1999). S “While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by [pro se litigants] be liberally construed . . . we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Once accepted for filing, the amended complaint becomes the operative pleading, and the original complaint is no longer considered. See Dluhos v. Floating & Abandoned Vessel, 162 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[I]t is well established that an amended complaint ordinarily -2- Case 9:20-cv-00184-TJM-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 4 supersedes the original, and renders it of no legal effect.”) (quoting Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir. 1994)). Plaintiff’s submission presently before the Court is not in compliance with N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 7.1(a)(4). The submission does not include a list of parties and does not set forth any cause(s) of action. Additionally, while the original Complaint included twelve defendants, the caption of the submission lists only, “The State of New York et al.” See Dkt. No. 13 at 1. The submission before D the Court is six pages in length while the original Complaint was twelve pages and included a fiftysix page supplement. See Dkt. No. 1. As explained above, Plaintiff may not submit an amended complaint and at the same time proceed with the original complaint. Compliance with this Court’s local rules is “not merely technical in nature.” See Cusamano v. Sobek, 604 F.Supp.2d 416, 508 (N.D.N.Y. 2009). J At this juncture, the Court will not accept the pleading, identified at Dkt. No. 13, as the Amended Complaint or the operative pleading. Plaintiff is directed to, within SIXTY DAYS of the within Order, submit a proposed amended pleading that complies with this Court’s Local Rules or, inform the Court that he intends to proceed with Dkt. No. 13 as the operative pleading. Any amended complaint must be a complete pleading which sets forth all of the claims Plaintiff seeks to S assert in this action against the persons named as defendants. At this juncture, the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) remains the operative pleading. III. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff must comply with the directives set forth in this Order within SIXTY days; and it is further -3- Case 9:20-cv-00184-TJM-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 4 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the docket report consistent with this Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, the April Order, and the original Complaint on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. Dated: May 5, 2020 Albany, New York D J S -4-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
