Jones v. The City of New York

Background

A December 3, 2019 order gave Plaintiff Kareem Omar Jones permission to amend his complaint. That earlier order required him to provide facts supporting two issues: whether equitable tolling should apply to his false-arrest claim, which the order described as time-barred, and whether his criminal proceeding ended in a way indicating his innocence.

On January 3, 2020, the court received a letter from Jones requesting the undersigned judge’s individual practice rules, notifying the court that he sought discovery—specifically, the names of the officers who arrested him—and asking when his amended complaint was due.

Order

The court stated that the amended complaint was due on February 3, 2020. After Jones filed it, the court would review it and determine whether the case should be reassigned to a district judge. If reassigned, the Clerk would mail Jones that judge’s individual practice rules.

The court also stated that the district court could later direct the New York City Police Department to identify the arresting officers. Citing a prior decision, the court explained that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying a defendant. For that reason, it concluded that Jones did not need the undersigned judge’s individual practice rules.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to mail Jones a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The order set a filing deadline and addressed the timing of possible assistance with identifying defendants; it did not decide the merits of Jones’s claims or state that discovery was granted or denied.