In Re Rikers West Facility Coordinated Cases

Background

The City of New York asked the court to clarify which complaint controlled in the case and requested more time to respond to pro se plaintiff Mark Russell’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Russell had filed a motion for permission to amend his complaint after the City moved to dismiss. His motion and later submissions added facts and alleged constitutional violations.

Russell later explained that his filings were updates and additions to his existing case rather than a new complaint. He also said that the filings concerned all current and future plaintiffs. The cases had been coordinated for purposes of the City’s motion to dismiss.

Court’s ruling

The court applied the rule that filings by a person without a lawyer should be read generously and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments they reasonably suggest. It therefore construed Russell’s motion for permission to amend, together with declarations and other submissions, as opposition papers responding to the City’s motion to dismiss. Because Russell said the submissions applied to all plaintiffs, the court treated them as opposition papers in all of the coordinated cases.

The court granted Russell’s motions at ECF Nos. 27 and 32 for that limited procedural purpose. It also granted the City’s request for an extension to respond to Russell’s temporary-restraining-order motion. The City’s response was due December 10, 2025, and Russell’s reply, if any, was due December 24, 2025. The clerk was directed to mail the order to the pro se plaintiffs and terminate the listed motions.

The court further stated that any claim that defendants in the separate Nunez case violated that case’s remedial orders or consent judgment had to be brought before Judge Laura Taylor Swain, who retained continuing jurisdiction over that case. The order did not rule on the merits of the City’s motion to dismiss, Russell’s temporary-restraining-order motion, or the alleged constitutional violations.