Opinion
21-CV-10152 (LJL) (BCM)
09-30-2022
TREVOR FORREST, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, G.R.V.C., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
BARBARA MOSES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Trevor Forrest, proceeding pro se, alleges in his Complaint (Dkt. 2) that defendants violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause by preventing him from attending congregate religious services while incarcerated at Riker's Island. On April 8, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 25.) On June 9, 2022, the Court directed plaintiff to respond to the motion by July 8, 2022. (Dkt. 28.) On July 11, 2022, the motion was referred to me for report and recommendation. (Dkt. 34.)
On July 12, 2022, the Court received a signed letter from plaintiff, dated June 20, 2022, which was titled "Amended Complaint" and further alleged that plaintiff was "being denied access to the mosque" to pray. (Dkt. 35.) By Order dated July 14, 2022, the Court noted that it could, in its discretion, consider factual allegations made in a pro se plaintiff's opposition papers as supplementing the complaint (at least to the extent they are consistent with the allegations in the complaint), and directed defendants to file their reply papers in support of their motion to dismiss by July 28, 2022. (Dkt. 36.) After obtaining an extension, defendants timely filed their reply papers on August 11, 2022 (Dkt. 40), thus completing the briefing with respect to the motion to dismiss.
On September 7, 2022, the Court received a signed, hand-written letter from plaintiff, dated August 30, 2022, warning that "if you receive a letter from me typed by the prison typewriter, it's not me. Someone is trying to impersonate me. All of my letters are handwritten and none is typed by a typewriter." (Dkt. 42.) Thereafter, on September 13, 2022, the Court received a typewritten proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (Dkt. 43), which bears the caption of this case but is undated and unsigned. The proposed SAC would significantly broaden the scope of this case to include a wide range of allegations never previously made, including claims that plaintiff was denied health care, denied access to the law library, denied fresh air and exercise, sexually harassed, denied access to his court-appointed counsel, and subjected to unsafe conditions of confinement.
Even if the Court had not been warned against typed submissions purporting to be from plaintiff Forrest, it could not accept the proposed SAC as an amended pleading because it is unsigned, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a) ("Every pleading . . . must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name - or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented."), and because the time within which plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint without first obtaining a stipulation or court order has long run. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1), (a)(2).
Because the Court has reason to doubt the authenticity of the proposed SAC, a copy of that document is attached to this Order and will be mailed to the plaintiff by the Clerk of Court. It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall advise the Court by letter, no later than October 31, 2022, whether the proposed SAC is authentic and whether he seeks leave to file it as his amended pleading. If he does, he must date the proposed SAC, sign it in his own hand, and resubmit it, together with a motion requesting permission to do so. If plaintiff declines to do so, or fails to respond to this Order, the Court will strike the proposed SAC from the record and turn to the pending motion to dismiss the original Complaint.
SO ORDERED.