Thompson v. City of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-01458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kwaine Thompson v. City of New York, Judge Oetken required filings through counsel and treated the detention request as unrelated to trial.
Kwaine Thompson and his counsel, Sami Elamad; the order also concerns the defendants in the case because it addresses a filing in the pending action.
What happened
In Kwaine Thompson v. City of New York, the plaintiff filed a request for an injunction concerning his detention at Rikers Island, New York.
The court stated that the request did not appear related to the claims scheduled for trial beginning October 27, 2025. It also noted that Sami Elamad had appeared as pro bono counsel for the plaintiff through trial.
Because counsel had appeared, Judge Oetken stated that the plaintiff was no longer representing himself and that all filings had to be made through counsel. The order does not expressly state that the request for injunctive relief was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01458
- James Oetken
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
Kwaine Thompson filed a request for injunctive relief concerning issues about his detention at Rikers Island, New York. The request was filed at ECF No. 222. The court stated that it did not view the request as related to the claims scheduled for trial beginning Monday, October 27, 2025.
The court also noted that Sami Elamad had entered an appearance as pro bono counsel for Thompson through trial, at ECF No. 217.
Ruling
The court stated that Thompson was no longer representing himself because counsel had appeared on his behalf. It therefore stated that all filings had to be made through counsel. The order does not expressly state that the request for injunctive relief was granted, denied, dismissed, or otherwise disposed of on its merits.
Effect
The order addresses the relationship of the detention-related request to the upcoming trial and the manner in which Thompson must file documents going forward. It does not decide the underlying issues concerning his detention. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered the order on October 7, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.