Roach v. New York Housing Authority
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-08135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Edmindo A. Roach v. New York Housing Authority, Judge Clarke dismissed the action after Roach failed to amend, allowing reopening within 30 days.
Edmindo A. Roach and the New York Housing Authority, et al.; the action was closed, subject to Roach’s stated deadline to seek reopening.
What happened
In Edmindo A. Roach v. New York Housing Authority, the court had allowed Roach to file an amended complaint. Judge Netburn later told him that the case would be dismissed if he did not file it by October 9, 2025.
Roach did not file an amended complaint or otherwise tell the court that he intended to continue the case. The court therefore dismissed and closed the action without costs, while allowing Roach to ask to reopen it within 30 days.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered that any request to reopen be filed by November 15, 2025. After that date, Roach’s remaining claims would be dismissed with prejudice, and any pending motions were moot.
The detailed version
- Roach v. New York Housing Authority · No. 1:23-cv-08135
- Clarke
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
On August 22, 2025, the court granted Edmindo A. Roach permission to amend his complaint. On September 25, 2025, Judge Netburn informed Roach that the action would be dismissed and the case closed if he did not file an amended complaint by October 9, 2025.
As of October 20, Roach had not filed an amended complaint, responded to either order, or otherwise indicated that he intended to pursue the action.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed and discontinued the action without costs. The dismissal was without prejudice to Roach’s right to reopen the action within 30 days of the order. The order stated that any application to reopen had to be filed by November 15, 2025; after that date, Roach’s remaining claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
The court also ruled that any pending motions were moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The ruling was based on Roach’s failure to amend or otherwise respond after receiving notice and an opportunity to do so; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.