Swinson v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-00994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Swinson v. City of New York, Judge Abrams ordered clarification of allegations and postponed defendants’ response deadline indefinitely.
Randy Swinson and the defendants named in his second amended complaint, including the City of New York and the individuals whose alleged involvement required clarification.
What happened
Randy Swinson v. City of New York concerns Swinson’s second amended complaint, which added defendants connected to his current facility but did not clearly explain what three of them allegedly did.
The court ordered Swinson, who is representing himself, to send a letter by June 22, 2021, clarifying his allegations against Captain Jennifer Cottman, Warden Jean Renee, and ADW John Doe “LaCroix,” along with any related information responding to the City’s letter. The court said it would treat consistent allegations in that letter as part of the second amended complaint.
Judge Ronnie Abrams postponed all defendants’ response deadline indefinitely, directed the City to provide a status update by July 16, 2021, and ordered the Clerk to mail Swinson the order and update his address. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Swinson v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00994
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Randy Swinson filed a second amended complaint in this civil case. The City’s counsel asked the court for additional clarification because the allegations principally concerned events at the Manhattan Detention Complex, while several newly named defendants appeared connected to Swinson’s newer facility, the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island. The City also stated that the complaint did not describe the involvement of the newly named defendants.
The court specifically stated that it could not identify allegations mentioning Captain Jennifer Cottman, Warden Jean Renee, or ADW John Doe “LaCroix.” The opinion also states that Swinson is proceeding without a lawyer.
Order
The court ordered Swinson to write to the court by June 22, 2021, supplementing his second amended complaint by clarifying what he alleged against Cottman, Renee, and LaCroix, and providing any other information he wished to submit in response to the City’s letter. Because Swinson was representing himself, the court said it intended to consider allegations in the letter as part of the second amended complaint if they were consistent with the complaint.
The court adjourned—that is, postponed—all defendants’ deadline to respond indefinitely. It directed the City to file a status update by July 16, 2021, concerning the next steps in the case. The Clerk was directed to mail Swinson a copy of the order and update the docket with his new address.
Disposition and Effect
This order required clarification and postponed the response deadline. It did not dismiss the case, decide the claims’ merits, or rule on whether any defendant was liable.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.