Drayton v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-05264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frank S. Drayton v. City of New York, Judge Woods extended Drayton’s amendment deadline and denied appeal-fee waiver status.
Frank S. Drayton, the newly identified individual defendants, the City of New York, and the two already named individual defendants.
What happened
Frank S. Drayton v. City of New York involves damages claims that the court understood as federal civil-rights claims. Drayton is representing himself without a lawyer. The court had ordered him to amend his complaint after the City’s counsel identified previously unnamed defendants by name and badge number.
Drayton did not file the required amended complaint by the earlier deadline. The court extended the deadline to November 26, 2025. If he does not amend by then, the court will dismiss his claims against the newly identified individual defendants, and the case will continue only against the City of New York and the two already named individual defendants.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Drayton permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The order did not decide the merits of Drayton’s civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Drayton v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-05264
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 13, 2025
Background
Frank S. Drayton filed this action on June 24, 2025, seeking damages. The court understood the complaint as asserting federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims against state or local officials for constitutional violations. Drayton is proceeding without a lawyer.
On August 8, 2025, the court ordered the City of New York’s Corporation Counsel to determine the full identities and badge numbers of the unidentified defendants. The court also ordered Drayton to file an amended complaint naming those individuals and providing their badge numbers within 30 days after receiving the information. On October 9, 2025, counsel for the defendants identified the previously unidentified defendants by name and badge number.
Order
On October 10, 2025, the court reminded Drayton that he had to file a compliant amended complaint by November 10, 2025, if he wanted the case to proceed. He did not file one by that date. Because Drayton is representing himself, the court extended the deadline to November 26, 2025.
The court stated that if Drayton does not file an amended complaint by November 26, it will understand that he does not wish to pursue claims against the newly identified individual defendants and will dismiss his claims against those defendants. The case would then proceed only against the City of New York and the two named individual defendants. The order did not dismiss those claims at this time and did not decide the merits of the civil-rights claims.
Appeal and classification
Judge Gregory H. Woods certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. This is a procedural order because it extends an amendment deadline, sets out a possible later dismissal, and addresses appeal-fee status without deciding whether Drayton’s claims are legally valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.