Etuk v. Bronxworks

Background

Akaniyene W. Etuk filed this action without a lawyer on June 24, 2024. He alleged that officials employed by Bronxworks, the Department of Human Services, and the New York City Police Department violated the Fourth Amendment and acted negligently by forcibly removing him from his residence on May 25, 2024.

Etuk later filed an amended complaint adding Montefiore Medical Center and the City of New York as defendants, along with claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. Because the pleadings referred to unidentified officers and employees, Judge John P. Cronan previously directed the Clerk to add placeholder defendants identified as John Does 1–10 and directed the City’s Corporation Counsel to determine their identities and service addresses. The Corporation Counsel provided a partial response and received an extension to complete it.

Filings at Issue

Etuk then filed a second amended complaint without obtaining permission from the court. That pleading named two individuals identified in the partial response, but no longer named any John Doe defendants. The court therefore found it unclear whether Etuk intended to proceed only against the currently named defendants or also against individuals who might be identified in the Corporation Counsel’s supplemental response. Montefiore also filed an answer that the order addressed as part of the disputed filings.

Court’s Ruling

The court ordered that Etuk’s second amended complaint and Montefiore’s answer be struck from the record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to remove redundant or improper material from a pleading. The court stated that striking the filings would avoid duplicative pleadings and allow all necessary parties to be included in one pleading.

The court permitted Etuk, within twenty-one days after the supplemental response—by February 11, 2025—to file a motion to amend accompanied by a single, comprehensive proposed second amended complaint. That proposed complaint was to identify every defendant Etuk wished to sue and assert every legal claim for which he sought relief. Until then, Etuk’s first amended complaint remained the operative pleading. The Clerk was directed to strike ECF Nos. 25 and 26 and mail the order to Etuk at the address on record.

Effect of the Order

The order was procedural and did not resolve whether Etuk’s Fourth Amendment, negligence, disability, or state-law claims were legally valid. It also did not decide which unidentified individuals, if any, could ultimately be included as defendants.