Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 26, 2020

Richards v. City of New York Comptroller

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:19-cv-10697
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Richards v. City of New York Comptroller, Judge Vyskocil added the City but denied adding the U.S. Attorney’s Office because of immunity.

Who this affects

Alroy Richards; the City of New York, which was added to the case caption and permitted to supplement its pending motion to dismiss; and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which the court declined to add as a defendant.

What happened

In Richards v. City of New York Comptroller, Alroy Richards, who was representing himself, asked to add the City of New York and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as defendants.

The court treated Richards’s complaint as asserting claims against the City and directed the Clerk to add it to the case caption. The court denied his request to add the United States Attorney’s Office, ruling that sovereign immunity and government lawyers’ absolute immunity barred the proposed claims.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also allowed the City to supplement its pending motion to dismiss and set deadlines for the City and Richards to respond.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Richards v. City of New York Comptroller · No. 1:19-cv-10697
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 26, 2020

Background

Alroy Richards, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a letter stating that he wanted to name the City of New York and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “USAO, SDNY”) as parties. The defendants named in the caption were the City of New York Comptroller, New York City Parks and Recreation, and the Equal Opportunity Commission.

Rulings

The court construed Richards’s complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and directed the Clerk of Court to add the City to the caption under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that the City could supplement its pending motion to dismiss to address claims against the municipality by September 28, 2020. Richards could respond by October 28, 2020.

The court denied Richards’s request to name and assert claims against the USAO, SDNY. It explained that sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government and its agencies unless immunity has been waived. The court also stated that government lawyers defending civil suits have the same absolute immunity as government prosecutors.

Disposition

The court added the City of New York to the caption and denied the request to add the USAO, SDNY. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims or the pending motion to dismiss. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order to Richards.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.