Richards v. City of New York Comptroller
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-03348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Richards v. City of New York, Judge Abrams allowed Richards to proceed without paying fees but denied sealing his related motion.
Alroy D. Richards was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, but his request to seal the related motion was denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion listed as ECF No. 182.
What happened
In Richards v. City of New York, Alroy D. Richards asked to proceed without paying the court’s filing fee and asked to keep that request sealed.
The court authorized Richards to proceed without paying the fee. It denied his request to seal the motion, noting that he had already made redactions.
Judge Abrams said Richards may file another sealing request if he still wants one, but it must explain why sealing is justified under the court’s rules and the required legal standard. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion listed as ECF No. 182.
The detailed version
- Richards v. City of New York Comptroller · No. 1:20-cv-03348
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
Alroy D. Richards asked for permission to proceed without paying court filing fees. He also asked the court to seal—that is, restrict public access to—the motion making that request. The opinion does not address the merits of Richards’s underlying claims against the defendants.
Rulings
The court authorized Richards to proceed without paying the filing fee. It denied his request to seal the fee-related motion. The court noted that Richards had already applied redactions. If he still seeks sealing, he must file a motion under Rule 5 of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. That motion must explain why sealing is justified, including why the request satisfies the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending as ECF No. 182. The opinion does not state whether Richards filed a renewed sealing motion or identify the specific contents of the motion the Clerk was directed to terminate.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.