Newman v. Park
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-06829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Newman v. Park, Judge Cronan dismissed several due-process claims without prejudice, allowed amendment, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Maurice Newman may amend his complaint within fourteen days. The procedural and substantive due-process claims against Molly Park and the City of New York, and the procedural due-process claim against Kirsis Ham, were dismissed without prejudice; Newman's substantive due-process claim against Ham remains active.
What happened
Maurice Newman, representing himself, sued Molly Park, the City of New York, and Kirsis Ham, alleging violations of his procedural and substantive due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case is Newman v. Park.
The court dismissed both types of claims against Park and the City without prejudice. It also dismissed Newman's procedural due-process claim against Ham without prejudice, while leaving his substantive due-process claim against Ham active. The court allowed Newman to file an amended complaint within fourteen days.
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the recommended decision in full. The order says that if Newman does not timely amend his complaint without first showing good cause, the court will order the dismissals with prejudice, and it denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Newman v. Park · No. 1:24-cv-06829
- John Cronan
- Aug. 14, 2025
Background
Maurice Newman brought this action without a lawyer against Molly Park, identified as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services and its Human Resources Administration; the City of New York; and Kirsis Ham. He alleged procedural and substantive due-process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant Park's and the City's motion to dismiss both due-process claims, dismiss Newman's procedural due-process claim against Ham on the court's own initiative, and allow Newman to amend his complaint. Ham had been served but had not appeared or answered.
Court's analysis
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation within the fourteen-day period. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error but also conducted an independent, fresh review. The court found the recommendation well reasoned and agreed that the procedural due-process claim against all three defendants should be dismissed and that the substantive due-process claim against Park and the City should be dismissed.
The court separately explained that it could dismiss the procedural due-process claim against Ham even though Ham had not appeared or joined the motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the Report and Recommendation and the objection period gave Newman notice and an opportunity to present his claim. It also concluded that the stated reason for dismissing the procedural due-process claim—Newman's failure to allege that he used the available appeal procedures—applied equally to Ham. The court emphasized that this ruling did not dismiss Newman's substantive due-process claim against Ham, which remained active.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court:
- dismissed the procedural and substantive due-process claims against Molly Park and the City of New York without prejudice; - dismissed the procedural due-process claim against Kirsis Ham without prejudice; and - granted Newman leave to amend.
Newman had fourteen days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified by Judge Willis. The court stated that failure to do so, without showing good cause in advance, would lead it to order the dismissals with prejudice. It also instructed that any amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.