Ndoye v. William P. Joyce
Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye v. William P. Joyce, in his official capacity as Deputy Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-08856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye v. Joyce, Judge Broderick granted Ndoye permission to file an amended petition.
Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye and the respondent government officials; the case proceeds with an amended petition and supplemental briefing.
What happened
Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye v. Joyce concerns Ndoye’s request to amend his petition. The initial petition was filed by his wife on his behalf, and Ndoye was proceeding without a lawyer. After a hearing, the government agreed to provide additional information to help the court decide the matter.
Ndoye requested permission to file an amended petition. Judge Broderick found no improper delay, bad faith, attempt to stall, or reason the amendment would serve no purpose. The court also considered that Ndoye had limited access to the case’s facts and to the legal system.
Judge Broderick granted leave for Ndoye to file an amended petition. Ndoye was directed to file it on the docket; the respondents must file a supplemental response within two weeks afterward, and Ndoye may file a reply within one week after that response.
The detailed version
- Ndoye v. William P. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-08856
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
The court held an order-to-show-cause hearing on November 13, 2025. At that hearing, the government agreed to file a supplemental declaration containing information discussed during the hearing. The government later stated that it would prepare and file that declaration by November 25, 2025.
On November 24, 2025, the court docketed Ndoye’s request to file an amended petition. The proposed amended petition had been transmitted to the court by email, and the document filed on the docket included Ndoye’s signature. The opinion states that Ndoye was proceeding without a lawyer and that his wife had filed the original petition as a person seeking to act for him, with limited access to the underlying facts and legal system.
Amendment Standard and Analysis
The court explained that a habeas petitioner may amend a petition, but that Ndoye needed the court’s permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). That rule provides that permission to amend should be freely given when fairness requires it. The court identified improper delay, bad faith, an attempt to stall, or an amendment that would serve no legal purpose as grounds for denying permission.
The court found that the record showed none of those grounds. It also noted that a copy of the amended petition had been provided to the court and respondents’ counsel during the hearing on November 10. Based on those circumstances, the court found that fairness required allowing the amendment.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court granted Ndoye leave to file an amended petition. Ndoye was directed to file the amended petition on the docket. The respondents must file a supplemental response within two weeks after that filing. Ndoye is not required to file a reply, but may do so within one week after the respondents’ supplemental response. This order does not decide the underlying claims in the petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.