Ballentine v. NYCPD

Background

Quintin J. Ballentine, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events on June 1, 2024. In an earlier order, the court directed service on the City of New York and directed the New York City Law Department to identify the New York City Police Department officers allegedly involved. The Law Department identified Police Officer Steven Tapia and former Police Officer Alexis Bedolla Benavente.

Ballentine later filed an amended complaint adding New York City Mayor Eric Adams, but the court subsequently dismissed Mayor Adams from the action and directed Ballentine to file another amended complaint naming Tapia and Bedolla Benavente. The court extended the filing deadline to May 26, 2025. Ballentine still had not filed that required amended complaint when the court issued this order.

Ballentine filed two motions for summary judgment, along with other submissions. The defendants had not yet responded to the complaint, and discovery had not occurred.

Summary-judgment motions

Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a claim when the material facts are not genuinely disputed. The court held that Ballentine’s motions were premature because the defendants had not had an opportunity to respond and the parties had not conducted discovery. The court therefore denied both motions as premature, without prejudice to renewal after discovery in the action has concluded.

Required amended complaint

The court ordered Ballentine to file one single, complete amended complaint by July 7, 2025. The complaint must assert all of his purported claims against all relevant defendants, including Police Officer Steven Tapia and former Police Officer Alexis Bedolla Benavente. The court stated that the amended complaint would completely replace the previously filed complaints, rather than supplement them, so any facts or claims Ballentine wished to pursue had to appear in that filing.

Other orders

The court stated that it would provide further information about how the case would proceed after Ballentine filed the amended complaint. It also warned that failure to comply with court orders, procedural rules, or discovery obligations could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal or preclusion of claims or defenses, or preclusion of arguments or evidence. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the two pending summary-judgment motions at docket entries 22 and 25.