Goonewardena v. City of New York
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-05554
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Goonewardena v. City of New York, Judge Tarnofsky denied requests to block a future dismissal motion and to remove her from the case.
Prasanna Goonewardena, the City of New York and the other defendants, and Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky’s handling of the pretrial proceedings.
What happened
In Prasanna Goonewardena v. City of New York, et al., the plaintiff filed an amended emergency motion seeking several forms of relief while defendants prepared to respond to his Fourth Amended Complaint.
The court denied his request to reject any future motion by defendants to dismiss the complaint. It also explained that it did not intend to block his account for accessing court records, and that it could not prevent court orders from appearing online without a sealing order. The court said the plaintiff had not met the required standard for sealing the orders.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky also denied, to the extent requested, the plaintiff’s request that she step aside because of an appearance of partiality. The court said disagreement with a judge’s decisions is not a proper basis for removal. Defendants’ response to the complaint and the parties’ later briefing deadlines remain as stated in the order, and the Clerk was asked to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Goonewardena v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-05554
- Tarnofsky
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
Judge Garnett referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for general pretrial matters, including decisions on non-dispositive motions. The pending matter was Plaintiff’s amended emergency motion for miscellaneous relief, identified as ECF 59. The Fourth Amended Complaint was the operative complaint.
Rulings
The court denied Plaintiff’s application asking the court to reject any motion by Defendants to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. The court directed Defendants to file their response to the complaint by September 19, 2025, with copies of all unreported cases cited in their briefs. Plaintiff’s opposition was due February 27, 2026, and Defendants’ reply was due March 27, 2026. The court stated that Plaintiff could address in his opposition any issue concerning the length of Defendants’ brief, his claim that Defendants improperly used artificial intelligence in preparing the motion, and other proper grounds for opposing the motion. Plaintiff could not respond by filing another amended complaint without the court’s permission.
The court stated that it had no intention of “blocking” Plaintiff’s PACER account. PACER is the federal court system used to access electronic court records. The court also explained that orders generally could not be prevented from appearing online unless they were sealed, and that Plaintiff had not met the high standard for sealing them.
To the extent Plaintiff sought recusal—meaning removal of the judge from the case—based on an appearance of partiality, the court denied that application. The court said Plaintiff had identified no possible basis for bias other than disagreement with some of the court’s orders, and that disagreement with a judge’s decisions is not a proper basis for recusal. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate ECF 59.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.