Awan v. MTA
Abdul Q. Awan v. MTA, New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, Homeland Security Dept., National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Center for Disease Control (CDC), Dept. of Transportation (US DOT), United States Attorney (DOJ)
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-04339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abdul Q. Awan v. MTA, Judge Torres overruled objections to pretrial rulings and denied reconsideration of an earlier order.
The ruling affects Abdul Q. Awan’s objections and reconsideration request; the challenged pretrial rulings were not set aside.
What happened
In Abdul Q. Awan v. MTA, Abdul Q. Awan, representing himself, filed three letters asking for “writs of error” concerning pretrial rulings by Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo. The letters also asked the court to reconsider a July 29, 2025 order.
Awan argued that Judge Ricardo lacked authority to handle the case, improperly extended the defendants’ deadline to answer, and incorrectly dismissed the case and described the record. He also questioned whether the district court had authority to issue the July 29 order.
Judge Analisa Torres overruled Awan’s objections and denied his request for reconsideration. She concluded that Judge Ricardo had authority to handle pretrial matters, had not made a legal or factual error in extending the defendants’ deadline, and had not misrepresented the record. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54 and mail Awan a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Awan v. MTA · No. 1:25-cv-04339
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 8, 2025
Background
Abdul Q. Awan, proceeding without a lawyer, filed three motions for “writs of error” on August 11, August 28, and October 1, 2025. The court read the letters broadly as objections to non-dispositive pretrial rulings—rulings that did not finally decide the case—issued by Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo. The letters also appeared to seek reconsideration of the district court’s July 29, 2025 order denying an earlier motion for a “writ of error.”
Issues and Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial ruling and may set the ruling aside only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that magistrate judges may handle pretrial matters when a district judge refers the case to them and have broad discretion over non-dispositive matters.
The court identified three objections by Awan: that Judge Ricardo lacked authority to preside over the case; that Judge Ricardo improperly extended the defendants’ deadline to file an answer; and that Judge Ricardo’s August 19, 2025 order improperly dismissed the case and inaccurately described the record. The court rejected these objections. It concluded that Judge Ricardo had authority under the referral, that extending the answer deadline was permitted for good cause, and that Judge Ricardo had not clearly misrepresented, misunderstood, or distorted the record.
The court treated Awan’s challenge to the July 29 order as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when there is an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court found no basis for reconsidering the July 29 order and stated that it retained authority to review Awan’s Rule 72(a) objections.
Disposition
The court overruled Awan’s objections and denied his motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54 and mail Awan a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.