Opinion
14-865
05-14-2015
TIMOTHY THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIANE TOPOREK, ROSALYN KILLINGER, CARL J. KOENIGSMANN, Defendants-Appellees.
FOR APPELLANT: Timothy Thomas, pro se, Alden, New York. FOR APPELLEES: Barbara D. Underwood, Andrew B. Ayers, Zainab A. Chaudhry, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, New York.
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of May, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges , GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge .
Judge Gregory H. Woods, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FOR APPELLANT:
Timothy Thomas, pro se, Alden, New York.
FOR APPELLEES:
Barbara D. Underwood, Andrew B. Ayers, Zainab A. Chaudhry, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and REMANDED.
Timothy Thomas appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), granting defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Thomas, an inmate at the Wende Correctional Facility, sued three defendants employed by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His pro se complaint alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 6, 2014, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Thomas appeals from that dismissal.
Thomas's appellate brief and an unusual notation on the district court's docket (see App. at 5, no. 12) reflect the likelihood that Thomas never received a copy of the district court's March 6, 2014 Decision and Order. In this unique case, in order to ensure that Thomas has a full and fair opportunity to challenge the merits of the district court's decision, remand is warranted.
We hereby VACATE and REMAND the judgment of the district court. On remand, the district court may issue a decision that is identical to its March 6, 2014 decision if it wishes. The district court, however, must ensure delivery of all relevant documents to Thomas. If Thomas files another notice of appeal in this matter, he should attach a copy of this order, and the Clerk of Court is directed to waive the filing fee.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK