Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 28, 2025

Montero v. City of New York

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:25-cv-02482
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Montero v. City of New York, Judge Rochon dismissed claims against a city office, ordered service on others, and denied counsel without prejudice.

Who this affects

Antony Montero’s claims against the Office of the Mayor – Office of Labor Relations were dismissed, while his claims against the City of New York, Lisa Jones, Shaneka McKellar, R. Campion, Claire Cammarta, and Waltra Montgomery proceeded to service. His request for full-scope pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice.

What happened

In Montero v. City of New York, Antony Montero, who is representing himself, brought claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other laws. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

The court dismissed Montero’s claims against the Office of the Mayor – Office of Labor Relations because a city office or agency cannot generally be sued. The court will treat allegations against that office as claims against the City of New York. The court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City, Lisa Jones, Shaneka McKellar, R. Campion, Claire Cammarta, and Waltra Montgomery.

Judge Rochon denied Montero’s request for full-scope pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later because it was too early to assess the case’s merits. The court said it would separately refer the case to mediation and request counsel for that limited purpose, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Montero v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-02482
Judge
Rochon
Date
Apr. 28, 2025

Background

Antony Montero is proceeding without a lawyer and alleged that the defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other federal and state laws. The court had granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The final amended complaint was the operative pleading.

Claims Against the Office of Labor Relations

The court dismissed Montero’s claims against the Office of the Mayor – Office of Labor Relations. Applying the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepayment of fees, the court concluded that an office or agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued and therefore that the claims failed to state a claim for relief. The court did not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to this dismissal.

Because Montero was representing himself, the court said it would construe allegations against the Office of Labor Relations as allegations against the City of New York, which is also a defendant.

Service of the Remaining Defendants

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms for the City of New York, Lisa Jones, Shaneka McKellar, R. Campion, Claire Cammarta, and Waltra Montgomery. The documents were to be delivered to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could serve those defendants. The court extended the service period until 90 days after any summonses issue. It also stated that Montero must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Request for Counsel

Montero applied for the court to request pro bono counsel. The court denied the application for full-scope representation without prejudice to renewal later because the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits. The court noted that, by separate order, it would refer the action to mediation and request pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of representing Montero in mediation.

Conclusion and Appeal

Judge Rochon dismissed Montero’s claims against the Office of the Mayor – Office of Labor Relations, directed service of the remaining defendants, and denied the application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.