Davis v. Carty
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06674
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Davis v. Carty, Judge Swain granted in part Davis’s extension request, giving her 30 days to amend her employment-discrimination complaint.
Shianne C. Davis’s deadline to amend her complaint was extended by 30 days; Beatrice Carty and the other defendants were not subject to a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
In Davis v. Carty, Shianne C. Davis asked for more time to file an amended complaint after the court previously found that her complaint did not state a claim for relief. She asked for an extension until September 16, 2025, citing her lack of legal skills.
The court granted only a brief extension: Davis received 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court explained that she needed to provide only a short, plain statement of her claim and did not need to submit evidence at this stage. It attached an employment-discrimination complaint form and described the kinds of facts that could support a discrimination claim.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also stated that the complaint would be dismissed if Davis did not file an amended complaint on time and could not show good cause for the delay. The court denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal from this order, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Carty · No. 1:24-cv-06674
- Laura Swain
- July 22, 2025
Background
Shianne C. Davis sued Beatrice Carty and other defendants. The court previously ruled that Davis’s complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The court later granted Davis’s request for an extension until July 13, 2025.
Shortly before that deadline, Davis requested another extension, asking for time until September 16, 2025. She gave her lack of legal skills as the reason. The opinion also states that the court had previously referred Davis to the City Bar Justice Center’s Southern District of New York Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project.
Court’s Guidance
The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only a short and plain statement of a plaintiff’s claim at the pleading stage. Davis was not required to submit evidence with an amended complaint. The court encouraged her to use the attached employment-discrimination complaint form, identify the statutes under which she sought relief, identify the protected class or classes involved, and provide facts directly showing discrimination or facts supporting a plausible inference of discrimination. The court also stated that she could attach the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice of right to sue, if she had received one.
The court noted that its earlier order had explained, among other things, that the proper defendant in a Title VII action by a United States Postal Service employee is the Postmaster General and that Title VII preempts state-law discrimination claims against a federal employer.
Ruling
The court granted in part Davis’s request for an extension of time and granted her 30 days to file an amended complaint. The order does not grant the requested extension through September 16, 2025. It warns that, if Davis does not file an amended complaint within the deadline and cannot show good cause for the failure, the court will dismiss the complaint for the reasons stated in the March 13, 2025 order.
The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. This order itself does not decide whether Davis’s discrimination claims have merit.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.