Nieves v. New York City Department of Education
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-06267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Nieves v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Vargas declined blanket disability accommodations, while allowing specific extension requests and denying appeal fee-waiver status.
Fernando Nieves, Jr., who sought disability-related accommodations while proceeding without a lawyer; the order also affects any appeal from this order.
What happened
In Fernando Nieves, Jr. v. New York City Department of Education, Fernando Nieves, Jr. asked the court for disability-related accommodations, including extra time, simpler instructions, accessible filing formats, and consideration of certain timing doctrines.
The court said the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to federal courts and does not excuse a person without a lawyer from procedural rules or deadlines. It would consider requests for more time for specific deadlines when supported by medical circumstances, but it would not change all deadlines at once. The court also referred Nieves to court and legal-clinic resources and provided an email address for specific accessible-format requests.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas entered the order on October 29, 2025. She certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal. The order did not separately decide the requested equitable-tolling or continuing-violation issues.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:24-cv-06267
- Vargas
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
Fernando Nieves, Jr., who was proceeding without a lawyer, sent the court letters requesting reasonable accommodations based on disabilities. He requested:
- extended deadlines for all filings and responses; - simplified instructions and procedural guidance; - permission to file documents in accessible formats; and - consideration of equitable tolling and the continuing-violation doctrine based on his documented incapacity and the destruction of key administrative records.
Court’s Analysis
The court said it was unclear what legal basis supported the requests. To the extent Nieves relied on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the court explained that the ADA does not apply to federal courts. The court also stated that the ADA does not provide a basis for excusing a person without a lawyer from applicable procedural rules or deadlines.
The court would not grant a blanket modification of every filing and response deadline. It stated that, as it had done previously, it would allow additional time when Nieves’s medical circumstances warranted it. Specific extensions could be requested under Section 1.F of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases.
For procedural guidance, the court directed Nieves to the Pro Se Intake Unit and identified a district Pro Se Law Clinic operated by the City Bar Justice Center. The court clarified that the clinic is a private organization and is not part of the court. Regarding accessible-format filings, the court said Nieves had not explained what format he wanted or how the requested format related to his psychiatric disability, and directed accommodation requests to the court’s accommodation email address.
Disposition
The order did not grant a blanket change to all deadlines. It stated that specific deadline extensions could be requested when medically warranted and provided resources for procedural guidance and accommodation requests. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not separately decide the requested equitable-tolling or continuing-violation issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.