Etuk v. Bronxworks
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-04953
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Etuk v. Bronxworks, Judge Cave granted Etuk’s motion to amend, making his Third Amended Complaint the operative pleading.
Akaniyene Etuk, the defendants, and the individuals identified in the City of New York Corporation Counsel’s January 21, 2025 response.
What happened
In Etuk v. Bronxworks, Akaniyene Etuk, representing himself, filed a Third Amended Complaint without first asking for permission to amend.
The court treated that filing as a request to amend the complaint, received no opposition from the defendants, and granted the request. The Third Amended Complaint will control the case, and the defendants must answer or otherwise respond by March 26, 2025.
The order was issued by Sarah L. Cave, a United States Magistrate Judge. It also set a March 21, 2025 deadline for the City of New York’s Corporation Counsel to notify the court if it will not represent any individuals identified in an earlier filing.
The detailed version
- Etuk v. Bronxworks · No. 1:24-cv-04953
- John Cronan
- Mar. 5, 2025
Background
On January 30, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Akaniyene Etuk filed a Third Amended Complaint without moving for permission to amend. The court treated the filing as a motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which governs amendments requiring the court’s permission. The court directed the defendants to oppose the motion by February 18, 2025, but received no opposition.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to amend. It deemed the Third Amended Complaint the operative pleading, meaning the complaint that controls the case going forward. The defendants must answer or otherwise respond to that complaint by March 26, 2025.
The court also directed the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York to notify the court by March 21, 2025, if it determines that it will not represent any of the individuals identified in its January 21, 2025 Valentin response. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Mr. Etuk. The order addresses the amendment and related case-management matters; it does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.