Goodman v. The City of New York

Background

A magistrate judge previously recommended dismissing Goodman’s claims against the defendants. The recommendation concluded that claims against X Corp., Musk, and Sharp failed because Goodman had not adequately alleged coordinated action between those defendants and a state actor. It also concluded that claims against the City defendants—the City of New York and individual NYPD employees—should be dismissed primarily because the City defendants could not be held responsible for the conduct of John Doe defendants 1 through 4. The district court adopted that recommendation in full.

Goodman then moved for reconsideration and for relief from the judgment. Reconsideration is a request to have the court revisit its decision based on an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent serious unfairness. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure separately allows limited relief from a final judgment in circumstances such as fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence.

Arguments and analysis

Goodman relied on several matters that he characterized as new evidence. He alleged that NYPD officers assaulted him again on September 5, 2024. He also cited federal investigations involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams and NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban, and alleged that Alex Spiro, an attorney whom Goodman said had also represented Elon Musk, represented Mayor Adams in connection with his indictment.

The court held that these matters did not justify changing the judgment. It found that an unrelated alleged assault was insufficient to establish a municipal custom, policy, or practice supporting liability by the City. The court also found that Goodman’s assertions about Mayor Adams and Alex Spiro were conclusory and speculative and did not show coordinated action or a City policy or practice to suppress Goodman’s journalistic activities. The court noted that the NYPD itself could not be sued because it is an agency of the City of New York.

The court also rejected Goodman’s request that it take judicial notice of a letter from Mark Zuckerberg to Congress and congressional testimony by former Twitter employees. It found those materials irrelevant to Goodman’s claims. The court stated that it had already considered the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, new factual assertions in Goodman’s opposition papers, and a video cited in the complaint.

Goodman accused the court of bias and racism and suggested that Judge Clarke recuse herself. The court explained that recusal generally requires facts outside the judicial proceedings that reasonably call the judge’s impartiality into question. It found that Goodman identified no such conduct, statements, or facts. The court also found that Judge Clarke’s prior employment did not provide a basis for recusal because New York Attorney General Letitia James was not a party and was not otherwise relevant to Goodman’s claims.

Finally, the court found that the motion repeated arguments and factual assertions it had already considered, introduced new theories, and sought additional relief, including permission to add defendants. The court stated that reconsideration is not a vehicle for presenting a case under new theories.

Ruling

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Goodman’s motion in its entirety. The court found that Goodman had not identified exceptional circumstances, overlooked controlling decisions or data, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and stated that the case remains closed. The opinion does not add a separate “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to this denial.