Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 6, 2020

Caldwell v. Officer German Geronimo

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:19-cv-08253
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Caldwell v. Geronimo, Judge Failla treated Caldwell’s filings as a request to amend and ordered Geronimo to respond.

Who this affects

Boisey Caldwell’s request to amend was treated as a motion for permission to amend. Officer German Geronimo was given until November 20, 2020, to oppose it, and the Clerk was ordered to mail Caldwell a copy of the order.

What happened

In Caldwell v. Officer German Geronimo, Boisey Caldwell filed documents asking to add allegations supporting a claim against the City of New York. The court had previously dismissed the City because Caldwell had not adequately pleaded municipal liability.

The court interpreted Caldwell’s documents as a request for permission to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). It ordered Officer Geronimo to file any opposition by November 20, 2020.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide whether Caldwell may amend. The court also ordered the Clerk to mail Caldwell a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Caldwell v. Officer German Geronimo · No. 1:19-cv-08253
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
Nov. 6, 2020

Background

The court had previously denied Caldwell’s request for the City of New York’s complete use-of-force records from 2010 through 2020. The court explained that it had already dismissed the City as a defendant because Caldwell failed to state a claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York. The court also noted that the requested records appeared more relevant to a municipal-liability claim than to Caldwell’s claim against Officer Geronimo.

The court had stated that Caldwell’s time to amend the complaint as a matter of right had passed, but that he could still ask for permission to amend. Caldwell then filed documents titled “Response to court order of 10/16/20 – Rule 15(A)(2) and Rule 12(b) Amended Pleading for Municipal Liability” and “Affidavit of Support for Rule 15(A)(2) and Rule 12(b) Amended Pleading for Municipal Liability.”

Ruling

The court interpreted those documents as a motion for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). It ordered Officer Geronimo to file any opposition to the motion by November 20, 2020. It also ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Caldwell a copy of the order at his address of record.

The order did not decide whether Caldwell would be allowed to amend his complaint. It only set the deadline for the defendant’s response.

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.