Jackson v. Attorney Haley Ross
- Figueredo
- 1:25-cv-03392
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Joshua J. Jackson v. Attorney Haley Ross, Judge Figueredo treated Jackson’s filing as opposition, warned him about civility, and left dismissal motions pending.
Joshua J. Jackson and the defendants who filed the motions to dismiss: New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, Haley Ross, and Brooklyn Defender Services.
What happened
In Joshua J. Jackson v. Attorney Haley Ross, the court treated an affidavit Jackson filed as his opposition to two motions to dismiss. The motions were filed by New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation and by Haley Ross and Brooklyn Defender Services, and the court said both were fully briefed.
The court also warned Jackson that it would not tolerate further uncivil, dishonest, or improper communications with opposing lawyers or the court. It said vulgar language and name-calling could lead to penalties, including dismissal of the case.
Judge Valerie Figueredo did not decide either motion to dismiss in this order. She directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Jackson at the address listed in the order.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Attorney Haley Ross · No. 1:25-cv-03392
- Figueredo
- Nov. 24, 2025
What the order addressed
New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, identified in the order as formerly or otherwise known as NYC Health + Hospitals, filed a motion to dismiss on September 19, 2025. Hayley Ross, identified as Haley Ross, and Brooklyn Defender Services filed another motion to dismiss on October 14, 2025.
Jackson sent an affidavit to counsel for the defendants in response to the motions. The court construed the affidavit filed at ECF No. 43 as Jackson’s opposition to both motions and stated that the motions were fully briefed.
Warning about communications
The court noted that Jackson had used inappropriate language in an email to counsel for Haley Ross and Brooklyn Defender Services. It warned that further lack of civility, candor, or decorum in communications with opposing counsel or the court would not be tolerated. The court stated that vulgar language and name-calling can lead to sanctions, including dismissal of the case.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny either motion to dismiss. It addressed how Jackson’s filing should be treated, issued a warning about future communications, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Jackson at the address listed in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.