Alexander v. The City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-00284
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Zion Alexander v. City of New York: Judge Willis denied counsel without prejudice and ordered an amended complaint by October 31, 2025.
Zion Alexander must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individuals and must keep the court informed of any address change. The identified individuals, the City of New York, and NYC Health + Hospitals are affected by the amendment and identification process.
What happened
In Zion Alexander v. The City of New York, the court ordered Zion Alexander to file an amended complaint naming several individuals identified through earlier court orders. The City and NYC Health + Hospitals could not identify a defendant called “Adam.”
Alexander also renewed his request for a free lawyer, stating that he was confined in a hospital and had little access to a law library. The court said the case was still at an early stage and that it was too soon to evaluate its strength.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the renewed request for a lawyer without prejudice and required Alexander to file the amended complaint by October 31, 2025. The court also reminded him to report any address change.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-00284
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis for general pretrial matters. District Judge Ronnie Abrams had issued orders directing NYC Health + Hospitals and/or the City of New York to identify the names and service addresses of unknown defendants.
NYC Health + Hospitals identified Souparno Mitra, M.D., and Aaron Garcia, D.N.P., as two of the unknown defendants. The City identified Officers Hasani Thompson, Shield #19121; Anthony DeJesus, Shield #6035; and Willie Jackson, Shield #7711. Both entities were unable to identify the defendant referred to as “Adam.”
Orders Concerning the Amended Complaint and Address
The court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by October 31, 2025. The amended complaint must name the newly identified individuals as defendants and provide their service addresses.
The court also reminded Plaintiff that he must notify the court and provide a new address when his address changes. The court stated that the case may otherwise be dismissed. The Clerk was directed to update Plaintiff’s address using the address in Docket No. 33 and mail Plaintiff copies of specified docket entries and this order.
Request for Pro Bono Counsel
Plaintiff renewed his request for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer provided without charge. He stated that he was “currently an incapacitated person under § 730.30 and confined in a hospital, strictly for rehabilitational reasons,” and had little or no access to a law library. His earlier request had been denied without prejudice, meaning it could be renewed.
The court explained that appointment decisions consider the apparent merits of the case, the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present the case without counsel. The court gave the merits of the case the greatest attention but concluded that this case was still in its initial stages and that it was too early to assess those merits.
Disposition
Judge Willis denied Plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice. The court also ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than October 31, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.