Alli v. City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-04767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alli v. City of New York, Judge Netburn denied a temporary restraining order, struck an improperly filed complaint, and set response deadlines.
Umar Alli, the City of New York and the other defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the correctional authorities identified in the order.
What happened
In Alli v. City of New York, Umar Alli asked the court to stop alleged future retaliation or violence by correction officers. He also filed a complaint that he described as involving a separate matter, but the court determined that it was not an amended complaint in this case.
The court denied Alli’s request for a temporary restraining order because he did not show that he would suffer irreparable harm without the order or that he was likely to succeed—or had sufficiently serious legal questions—in the case. During the hearing, Alli said he might assault a correction officer preemptively; the court warned him that such conduct could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of his claims, and possible criminal prosecution.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn directed the Clerk to strike the improperly filed complaint, undo any resulting party-related actions, and file that complaint as a new case. She also ended the stay, extended the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint and a court order, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Alli.
The detailed version
- Alli v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-04767
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 15, 2021
Background
The court held a telephone conference concerning Umar Alli’s allegations of retaliation and his request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). A TRO is a short-term court order intended to prevent specified conduct while a case proceeds. Alli sought an order preventing future retaliation or violence by correction officers.
Alli also sent a letter stating that a separate matter would be filed concerning retaliation and other claims from “G.R.V.C.” A complaint dated November 4, 2021, was received by the court on November 9 and was designated by the Clerk’s Office as an amended complaint in this action. During the conference, the court confirmed that the filing was not an amended pleading in this case and should instead be filed in a new civil action.
Rulings
The court denied Alli’s motion for a TRO. It stated that he had not demonstrated either irreparable harm without the injunction or the required showing concerning the merits: a likelihood of success, or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him.
During the proceeding, Alli stated that if the TRO were not granted, he was likely to assault a correction officer preemptively to prevent a future attack. The court warned that assaulting an officer could result in sanctions in this case, including dismissal of his claims, as well as possible criminal prosecution. The Assistant Corporation Counsel was directed to notify a Department of Correction supervising officer of the threat.
Other Case Management Orders
The Clerk of Court was directed to strike the amended complaint at ECF No. 29, reverse any actions taken concerning parties as a result of that filing, and file the complaint in a new action. Because Officer Davis’s military leave was expiring on November 26, 2021, the court stated that the case was no longer stayed. Defendants were granted until December 27, 2021, to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and to respond to the court’s Valentin Order. A Valentin Order concerns identifying an unknown defendant. The Clerk was also directed to mail the order to Alli, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Disposition
The TRO motion was denied. The Clerk was directed to strike and separately file the complaint, and the case-management deadlines and stay status were changed as described above.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.