A lawsuit against Alec Baldwin claims a film script didn’t require him to shoot when he shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins to death.

Screenplay supervisor Mamie Mitchell, who called the police after filming on the film’s set in New Mexico, is filing a lawsuit.

His lawyer accused the plaintiff of “playing Russian roulette” when he fired the gun without checking it.

Baldwin and the producers of the film, who were also named in the lawsuit, have not yet commented.

The Hollywood actor previously shared comments from a crew member who dismissed suggestions that the film’s set wasn’t safe.

Authorities are still investigating the October 21 shooting on the set of the western movie Rust. No criminal charges have been brought against anyone.

Mrs Mitchell’s lawsuit claims that the script required three close-up takes: one of Mr. Baldwin’s eyes, another of a bloodstain on his shoulder, and a third of his torso “as he reached for his hand towards the holster and removed the pistol”.

“There was nothing in the script that the gun was unloaded by the defendant Baldwin or any other person,” he says.

In a press conference Wednesday, his attorney Gloria Allred described the behavior of Baldwin and the film’s producers as “reckless”, accusing them of not following security protocols.

According to court records, Baldwin received the weapon from the film’s assistant director who did not know it contained live ammunition and indicated that it had been discharged by shouting “cold gun”.

Ms. Allred said Baldwin “chose to play Russian roulette when he fired a pistol without checking it and without the gunsmith doing it in his presence.”

He added that a number of safety concerns meant it was “a case where injury or death was more than just a possibility – it was a likely outcome.”

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Mitchell was less than 4 feet (1.2 m) away from Mr. Baldwin when the weapon was unloaded.

“I relive the shooting and the sound of the gun blast over and over,” he told reporters.

His lawsuit is vindicating aggression, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deliberate damage infliction and seeking unspecified harm.

It is the second to be filed on the incident, after the set’s chief electrician filed a lawsuit earlier this month.

The film’s armourer, who was in charge of the guns and ammunition on set, said he didn’t know how a live bullet got into the weapon.