Rosa v. Administration for Children's Services
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-07304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Rosa v. Administration for Children’s Services, Judge Swain ruled Rosa’s amendment motion moot because she may amend once without court permission.
Felicia Rosa and the defendants she named, including the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, ACS case workers, and the other listed entities. The order primarily sets requirements and a deadline for Rosa’s potential amended complaint; it does not decide the merits of her claims.
What happened
In Rosa v. Administration for Children’s Services, Felicia Rosa, representing herself, sued the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, its case workers, and other entities. She asked for permission to amend her complaint.
The court explained that no summonses had issued, so the defendants had not been properly served. At this stage, Rosa could file one amended complaint without asking the court for permission. The court directed her to provide facts about each defendant’s actions, the relevant events, her injuries, and the relief she seeks.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that Rosa’s motion for permission to amend was moot. She gave Rosa 30 days to file an amended complaint; otherwise, the court would treat the original complaint as controlling and screen it for legal deficiencies. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Rosa v. Administration for Children's Services · No. 1:24-cv-07304
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
Felicia Rosa is representing herself and was allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees. She sued the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, ACS case workers, and other entities, including the State of New Jersey, the City of Paterson, the Paterson Housing Authority, the Albany Housing Authority, and Albany County. The opinion states that her claims appeared to involve events beginning in 2018, but it does not describe the claims in detail.
Rosa filed a motion asking for permission to amend her complaint.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint once without court permission within the applicable period after service. Because no summonses had issued, the defendants had not been properly served. The court therefore concluded that Rosa already had the right to file one amended complaint without a court order.
The court instructed Rosa that any amended complaint must give a short and plain statement explaining what each defendant did or failed to do, identify relevant people and their titles, describe the events and approximate dates and locations, explain her injuries, and state the relief she seeks. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it. The court also warned that unrelated claims against different defendants generally belong in separate lawsuits and said that Rosa should include any facts supporting a pause or extension of a limitations period if she believed some claims might be time-barred.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that Rosa’s motion for permission to file an amended complaint was moot because she could amend once without permission at that stage. The court ordered Rosa to submit an amended complaint within 30 days. No summons would issue at that time. If she did not file an amended complaint or request more time, the court would treat the original complaint as the operative complaint and review it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for legal deficiencies.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Rosa permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.