Williams v. New York City Housing Authority
- John Koeltl
- 1:18-cv-05912-JGK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Koeltl acknowledged receiving papers but made no ruling on the requested preliminary injunction.
The order concerns papers submitted by Gina Williams in her case against the New York City Housing Authority, Carolyn Jasper, Cesar Gonzalez, Matthew Hoffman, Rodney Davis, and Thelma Watkins. It grants no stated relief and imposes no stated ruling on any party.
What happened
Williams v. New York City Housing Authority concerns papers submitted by Gina Williams in her case against the New York City Housing Authority and the other named defendants. The opinion text identifies the case as 18-cv-5912 (JGK) and includes Williams’s response and memorandum supporting a request for a preliminary injunction.
Williams’s papers argue that the Housing Authority’s administrative procedures violated constitutional requirements and assert concerns about her family medical leave request and reimbursement for a vandalized vehicle. She asks the court to order the Housing Authority’s board panel to provide an affidavit and to grant her preliminary-injunction motion.
Judge John G. Koeltl’s order states only that the court received the attached papers and then marks the matter “SO ORDERED.” The order does not grant or deny the preliminary-injunction motion, decide the legal claims, or provide other relief.
The detailed version
- Williams v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:18-cv-05912-JGK
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 16, 2021
Nature of the Order
The operative order is brief. It states: “The Court has received the attached papers from the plaintiff.” It then states “SO ORDERED,” gives the date as March 16, 2021, and is signed by John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge.
Attached Papers
The attached materials include Gina Williams’s response to the New York City Housing Authority’s declaration opposing her motion for a preliminary injunction and a memorandum supporting that motion. Williams identifies herself as proceeding without a lawyer.
Williams argues that the Housing Authority’s board panel failed to follow constitutional procedures in reviewing an administrative decision. She asks the court to order the board panel to submit an affidavit stating that it reviewed her decision. Her memorandum also cites constitutional due-process principles and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law.
Williams’s response separately states that the Housing Authority’s human-resources department had not granted her request for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and had not reimbursed her for a vehicle that she says was vandalized on Housing Authority property. The opinion text does not state that the court evaluated or resolved these assertions.
Disposition
The order does not state that any motion was granted, denied, dismissed, or otherwise resolved. It does not decide whether Williams is entitled to a preliminary injunction or reach the merits of her claims. The Alaska Supreme Court decision quoted in the attached papers is a cited authority, not a ruling by this court.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.