Ramos v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:20-cv-06852
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ramos v. City of New York, Judge Nathan denied Ramos’s request to file another amended complaint because he did not explain the proposed changes.
Chauncy Ramos’s request to add a defendant and file a Third Amended Complaint was denied; the case’s pending motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint remained to be addressed.
What happened
In Ramos v. City of New York, Chauncy Ramos, who was representing himself, asked to file a Third Amended Complaint and add another defendant. Ramos’s lawsuit alleges that a New York State judge wrongly classified and sentenced him as a persistent violent felony offender in 1992, violating his constitutional rights.
The court denied the request because Ramos did not identify the proposed defendant, describe the proposed changes, provide a copy of the proposed complaint, or explain how the amendment would make his claims stronger. The court said this lack of detail did not satisfy the rule requiring motions to explain specifically the relief requested.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The court also found that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, administratively denied the City’s earlier motion to dismiss the original and First Amended Complaints, and directed Ramos to respond to the City’s pending motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint by October 15, 2021.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-06852
- Denise Cote
- Sept. 13, 2021
Background
Chauncy Ramos sued the City of New York. He alleges that a New York State Supreme Court Justice wrongfully designated and sentenced him as a persistent violent felony offender in 1992, violating the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Ramos filed the original complaint, then a First Amended Complaint and a Second Amended Complaint. The City moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and that motion remained pending when Ramos asked for permission to amend again and add another defendant.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts generally should freely allow amendments when justice requires. But when a scheduling order governs amendments, the party seeking a later amendment must also show good cause, which generally depends on that party’s diligence. Rule 7(b) separately requires a motion to state its grounds with particularity and identify the relief requested. In this district, a party seeking to amend must provide a proposed amended pleading or, at minimum, enough factual detail about the proposed changes for the court to evaluate the request.
Court’s reasoning
Ramos’s motion did not provide details about the proposed amendment or attach a proposed complaint. It only stated that he wanted to add a defendant whom he had not included in the Second Amended Complaint. Ramos did not identify that defendant or explain why adding the person would make his claims more viable or otherwise help his case. The court therefore found no basis to grant the request, while acknowledging Ramos’s status as a self-represented litigant and the generally liberal standard for amendments.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Ramos’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court found that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The court also administratively denied the City’s motion to dismiss the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint in light of the pending motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. It directed Ramos to respond to that pending motion by October 15, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.