In Re Rikers West Facility Coordinated Cases

Background

The City of New York asked the court to clarify the operative complaint and extend its deadline to respond to Mark Russell’s motion for a temporary restraining order, an emergency request for court relief. The order states that Russell was representing himself. The cases had been coordinated for purposes of the City’s motion to dismiss.

Russell filed a motion titled “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint,” along with additional filings. He later stated that those filings included updates and additions rather than a new complaint. They included allegations of constitutional violations. The court also noted that Russell referred to alleged violations of remedial orders in an earlier related proceeding. The court said any such claim concerning that proceeding had to be brought before the judge overseeing that case.

Court’s Treatment of the Filings

Because Russell was representing himself, the court read his submissions broadly and interpreted them to raise the strongest arguments they reasonably suggested. The court treated his motion for permission to amend the complaint, his declarations, and his later filings as opposition papers to the City’s motion to dismiss. Because Russell clarified that the filings concerned all current and future plaintiffs, the court applied that interpretation to all the coordinated cases covered by the earlier coordination order.

The court granted Russell’s motions at ECF Nos. 27 and 32 for this purpose. The order did not decide the City’s motion to dismiss or the underlying constitutional allegations.

Extension and Disposition

The court granted the City’s request for an extension to respond to Russell’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The City was ordered to respond by December 10, 2025. Russell was permitted to file a reply by December 24, 2025, if any.

Judge Analisa Torres directed the clerk to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiffs representing themselves and to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 27, 32, and 41 in 25 Civ. 4535. This order addressed how filings would be treated and set response deadlines; it did not resolve the motion to dismiss or the request for emergency relief.