Shamark K. Williams v. The City of New York and Police Officer Jason Lewin
- Ona Wang
- 1:23-cv-04016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. City of New York, Judge Wang granted Williams’s motion to file a sur-reply on defendants’ summary-judgment motion through December 19, 2025.
Shamark K. Williams, The City of New York, and Police Officer Jason Lewin; the order primarily affects Williams’s opportunity to file a sur-reply and the defendants’ service obligations.
What happened
Shamark K. Williams, who is representing himself, asked to file an additional response to The City of New York and Police Officer Jason Lewin’s motion for summary judgment.
The court granted Williams’s motion and gave him until December 19, 2025, to file the sur-reply. The court also reminded the defendants about their notice obligations and directed them to serve the order on Williams and file proof of service by December 2, 2025.
Judge Ona T. Wang entered this order on November 25, 2025. The order addressed the timing and filing of Williams’s response; it did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Shamark K. Williams v. The City of New York and Police Officer Jason Lewin · No. 1:23-cv-04016
- Ona Wang
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
The court received Plaintiff Shamark K. Williams’s motion to file a sur-reply—an additional written response—to Defendants The City of New York and Police Officer Jason Lewin’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion describes Williams as a self-represented litigant.
Court’s Analysis
The court discussed Local Civil Rule 56.1, which governs factual statements submitted with summary-judgment motions and responses. It also explained that courts read self-represented parties’ filings generously, while unsupported assertions cannot defeat a summary-judgment motion. The court stated that allowing the sur-reply would give Williams an opportunity to respond meaningfully to the summary-judgment motion.
Ruling
The court granted Williams’s motion to file a sur-reply through December 19, 2025. The court reminded the defendants of their notice obligations under Local Civil Rule 56.2 and Rule 5.b. of Judge Ho’s Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases. It directed the defendants to serve a copy of the order on Williams and file proof of service on the docket by December 2, 2025. The opinion does not rule on the merits of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.