Torres v. Department of Social Services
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-10553
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jesus Torres v. Department of Social Services, Judge Swain denied Torres’s motions to reopen his case and request for free counsel.
Jesus Torres’s requests to reopen the closed federal case and obtain free legal counsel were denied. His previously dismissed state-law claims remained available for refiling in state court because they had been dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Jesus Torres v. Department of Social Services, Jesus Torres claimed that social-services officials failed to investigate reports involving his child and failed to protect the child from harm. The court had previously dismissed his federal civil-rights claims and declined to hear his state-law claims.
Torres later sent letters asking for relief from the judgment and requested a lawyer. The court found that his letters did not show any valid reason to reopen the case under the rule governing relief from a judgment. It also explained that the state-law claims had been dismissed without prejudice, meaning he could refile them in state court.
Judge Swain denied both motions for relief from the judgment and Torres’s request for free counsel. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Department of Social Services · No. 1:23-cv-10553
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
Jesus Torres filed the original complaint while detained in Orange County Jail and without a lawyer. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Orange County Department of Social Services and three employees. He alleged that they failed to investigate reports of wrongdoing by the mother of his child and failed to investigate or protect his child from harm.
In an April 15, 2024 order, the court dismissed Torres’s § 1983 claims because the Constitution does not generally require government officials to investigate reports or protect an individual from harm. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed—so Torres’s state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court. The court allowed 30 days for Torres to file an amended complaint, but he did not do so by the deadline, and the court entered judgment on May 29, 2024.
Motions
The court later received two letters from Torres and a motion seeking free legal assistance. The court treated the letters as motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.
Ruling
The court denied Torres’s Rule 60(b) motions. It concluded that, even reading his submissions liberally, he had not shown any basis for relief from the judgment. The court reiterated that his allegations did not state a federal § 1983 claim because the Constitution does not impose a general duty on government officials to investigate or protect his child. Torres’s wish to sue additional parties, including a district attorney and sheriff’s department, also did not justify reopening this action.
The court denied Torres’s motion for appointment of free legal counsel because the case was already closed and, in the court’s view, the action did not have a likelihood of success in federal court. Finally, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Disposition
Torres’s Rule 60(b) motions and motion for free legal counsel were denied.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.