Alli v. Renee
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-09470
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Umar Alli v. City of New York, Judge Netburn denied Alli’s temporary restraining order and ordered an improperly filed complaint opened as a new case.
Umar Alli, the City of New York and the other defendants, correction officers, and the Clerk of Court.
What happened
In Umar Alli v. City of New York, Alli sought a temporary restraining order to prevent alleged future retaliation or violence by correction officers. During the conference, he also said he might assault an officer preemptively if the order was denied.
The court denied the temporary restraining order because Alli had not shown the required likelihood of success or serious merits questions, balance of hardships, and risk of harm that could not be repaired later. The court warned that assaulting an officer could lead to sanctions in the case, including dismissal, and criminal prosecution.
Judge Netburn also ruled that a complaint filed in this case as an amended complaint was not an amended pleading and directed the Clerk to strike it and file it as a new civil action. The case was no longer stayed, and defendants were given until December 27, 2021, to respond.
The detailed version
- Alli v. Renee · No. 1:21-cv-09470
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 15, 2021
Background
Umar Alli alleged retaliation and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent future retaliation or violence by correction officers. During a November 15, 2021, telephonic conference, 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 such an assault could result in sanctions in this case, including dismissal of his claims, and possible criminal prosecution. The Assistant Corporation Counsel was directed to notify a Department of Correction supervising officer of the threat.
Rulings
The court denied Alli’s motion for a TRO. It found that he had not demonstrated irreparable harm—that is, harm that could not be adequately remedied later—and had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him.
The court also addressed a complaint dated November 4, 2021, that Alli had filed in this action and that the Clerk’s Office had designated as an amended complaint. The court determined that it was not an amended pleading in this case and should instead be filed in a new civil action. The Clerk was directed to strike the amended complaint at ECF No. 29, reverse any actions taken regarding parties because 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 earlier Valentin Order. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Alli, who was representing himself.
Disposition and Classification
The TRO motion was denied. The purported amended complaint was ordered stricken and filed in a new civil action. This is a procedural order because it addressed preliminary relief and the handling of pleadings rather than deciding the underlying retaliation claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.