Griffin v. Corporation Counsel
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-08521
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Griffin v. City of New York, Judge Subramanian left prior rulings intact, declined to consider an unauthorized filing, and denied Griffin a fee waiver for an appeal.
Jeremiah Jerome Griffin, the City of New York, the other moving defendants, and defendants who may need to identify or serve Captain Dillard or other unidentified defendants. The prior dismissal of claims against the City and the prior ruling allowing the denial-of-food claim to proceed were left unchanged.
What happened
In Jeremiah Jerome Griffin v. City of New York et al., the court addressed three filings Griffin submitted after an August 1, 2025 opinion. That earlier opinion granted defendants’ motion to dismiss claims against the City of New York but denied the motion as to other moving defendants.
Griffin asked the court to undo any dismissal or give him three more weeks to file an opposition. The court found no reason to undo its earlier decision. It also considered Griffin’s opposition filing and said it would not change the result: Griffin still had not adequately alleged a City policy or practice, while the added facts supported allowing his denial-of-food claim to proceed. The court did not consider a third filing because it was unauthorized.
Judge Arun Subramanian stated that the court would separately address service on defendants who had not yet been served and ordered defendants to respond about identifying Captain Dillard or any other unidentified defendants. Judge Subramanian also denied Griffin a fee waiver for an appeal and directed the clerk to terminate the motion related to his request to vacate the prior ruling.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Corporation Counsel · No. 1:22-cv-08521
- Subramanian
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
The court had issued an August 1, 2025 opinion on defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to claims against the City of New York and denied it as to claims against other moving defendants. The August 11 order addressed three later filings mailed by Griffin.
Griffin’s request to undo the prior ruling
In Docket 94, Griffin asked the court to “vacate any dismissal of this case” or grant a three-week extension to file opposition papers. The court stated that Griffin gave no reason to vacate its opinion and that the extension request was nonspecific and largely repeated an earlier request that the court had denied. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 94. The order did not disturb the August 1 rulings.
Opposition to the motion to dismiss
In Docket 95, Griffin filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court had previously decided that motion without an opposition brief because Griffin had not adequately explained his delay. The court nevertheless reviewed the new filing and concluded that it would not change the earlier disposition.
The court said the filing appeared to be a modified brief or set of notes prepared for another plaintiff in another case, with statements that did not apply to Griffin’s case. It also included handwritten changes, additional pages, and added factual allegations. Those materials did not adequately plead a municipal policy or practice, so they did not change the dismissal of the claims against the City of New York. The additional facts did support the court’s conclusion that Griffin adequately pleaded his denial-of-food claim, so the court’s denial of defendants’ motion as to that claim also remained unchanged.
Unauthorized filing, service, and appeal status
In Docket 96, Griffin made another filing without authorization. The court said it did not need to consider it and stated that the additional allegations would not change the rulings even if considered.
Griffin also asked the court to issue a summons to Officer Clarke and sought an order requiring defendants to help identify Captain Dillard. The court stated that it would separately issue an order for service on defendants who had not yet been served. It directed defendants to respond by August 25, 2025, about whether any defendants were unidentified and could be identified and properly served.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Griffin in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to pursue the appeal without paying the required fees.
Classification
This is a procedural order. It addressed whether to revisit an earlier motion-to-dismiss ruling, whether to consider an unauthorized filing, service-related matters, and appeal-related fee status. It did not make a new merits determination about Griffin’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.