Drayton v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-05264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frank S. Drayton v. City of New York, Judge Woods dismissed claims against two unidentified defendants without prejudice and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Frank S. Drayton and the two unidentified defendants whose claims were dismissed; the remaining defendants continue to face the claims in the case and received deadlines for responding.
What happened
Frank S. Drayton, representing himself, brought claims for damages that the court understood as claims under a federal civil-rights law. The court had required him to amend his complaint after the City’s lawyer identified previously unidentified defendants by name and badge number.
Drayton did not file an amended complaint by the extended deadline. The court therefore dismissed his claims against “Unidentified Other Officers” and “Transporting Latino Responding Officer” without prejudice and directed the Clerk to remove them from the case caption. The claims against the remaining defendants were not dismissed by this order.
Judge Woods set deadlines for the remaining defendants to answer or move to dismiss and for the parties to respond to any dismissal motion. He also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Drayton permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Drayton v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-05264
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
On June 24, 2025, Frank S. Drayton filed this damages action while representing himself. The court construed his claims as alleging federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims for certain constitutional violations by state or local actors.
On August 8, 2025, the court directed the City of New York’s Corporation Counsel to determine the full identities and badge numbers of the unidentified defendants. The court also ordered Drayton to file an amended complaint naming those individuals and providing their badge numbers after receiving that information. On October 9, 2025, defendants’ counsel identified the previously unidentified defendants by name and badge number.
On October 10, 2025, the court reminded Drayton that he needed to file an amended complaint by November 10, 2025, if he wanted the case to proceed. On November 13, 2025, the court extended the deadline to November 26, 2025. The court warned that if Drayton did not file an amended complaint by that date, it would understand that he did not wish to pursue claims against the newly identified individual defendants and would dismiss his claims against them.
Ruling
Drayton did not submit an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed his claims against “Unidentified Other Officers” and “Transporting Latino Responding Officer” without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to remove those defendants from the case caption.
The court did not dismiss the claims against the remaining defendants in this order. It set the remaining defendants’ deadline to answer or move to dismiss at 21 days from the order’s date. It also set deadlines for Drayton’s opposition and any reply if defendants file a motion to dismiss, and stated that an unopposed motion could be treated as unopposed if Drayton did not respond by the specified date.
Judge Woods certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Drayton’s status allowing him to appeal without paying the required fees. The court also directed the Clerk to mail him a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.