Etuk v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-04962
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Etuk v. City of New York, Judge Woods granted dismissal motions, allowing amendment of some claims while dismissing others with prejudice.
Plaintiff Akaniyene William Etuk and the defendants, including the City of New York and Officer Frias. Some of Etuk’s claims may be amended, while other claims cannot be amended under this order.
What happened
In Etuk v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended dismissing the amended complaint while allowing Akaniyene William Etuk to revise some claims. No party filed a timely objection.
The court allowed Etuk to amend his claims involving the right to travel, privacy, excessive force, false arrest, and his disability claim against the City of New York. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order allowed him to try again. Other listed claims, all state-law tort claims, and the disability claim against Officer Frias were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the order did not allow another amendment of those claims.
Judge Gregory H. Woods adopted the recommendation, granted the defendants’ dismissal motions, and gave Etuk 30 days to file a second amended complaint. The court said it would enter judgment for the defendants if he did not do so and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal because it found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Etuk v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-04962
- Gregory Woods
- June 27, 2025
Background
On June 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a report and recommendation advising the court to grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint and allow Etuk to amend certain claims. The parties had 14 days to file written objections. No party filed an objection within that period.
Because there were no timely objections, Judge Woods reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. He found none and accepted and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Claims dismissed with leave to amend
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the following claims without prejudice, with leave to amend:
- Claim one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning the right to travel; - Claim two under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning the right to privacy; - Claim five under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning excessive force; - Claim six under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning false arrest; and - Etuk’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the City of New York.
Claims dismissed without leave to amend
The court dismissed the following claims with prejudice, without leave to amend:
- Claim three, concerning unauthorized legal determinations; - Claim four, concerning failure to identify as police officers; - Claim eight, concerning violation of the oath to “we the people”; - Claim nine, concerning impersonation of a police officer; - Claim ten, concerning employment by a foreign corporation; - Any tort claims arising under state law; and - Etuk’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim against Officer Frias.
Next steps and other rulings
The court ordered that any second amended complaint be filed within 30 days of the order. If Etuk does not file one within that period, the court stated that it will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and dismiss the action.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Etuk fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Etuk and terminate the motions listed at Docket Nos. 23 and 36.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Some claims were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend, while the other identified claims were dismissed with prejudice, without leave to amend.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.