Ware Bey v. Adams
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-02593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ware Bey v. Adams, Judge Engelmayer denied reconsideration of an order dismissing Doe claims and replacing the Department of Correction with New York City.
Vicky Ware Bey, the proposed John Doe 1-1000 and Jane Doe 1-1000 plaintiffs, the New York City Department of Correction, and the City of New York.
What happened
In Ware Bey v. Adams, the court had previously dismissed Vicky Ware Bey’s claims brought on behalf of John Doe 1-1000 and Jane Doe 1-1000. It also dismissed her claims against the New York City Department of Correction and directed the Clerk to substitute the City of New York as the defendant.
Bey asked the court to reconsider that order and restore the John and Jane Does as plaintiffs. The court said reconsideration is allowed only when a party identifies overlooked controlling law or facts, new evidence, a change in controlling law, clear error, or serious injustice. The court found that Bey identified none of those grounds. It also explained that a person representing herself can represent only her own interests and that the Department of Correction cannot be sued directly.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Bey’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and mail the order to Bey at the address on file.
The detailed version
- Ware Bey v. Adams · No. 1:22-cv-02593
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 21, 2022
Background
On April 8, 2022, the court issued an order of service that dismissed Vicky Ware Bey’s claims brought on behalf of John Doe 1-1000 and Jane Doe 1-1000. The order also dismissed Bey’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction. The court treated those claims as claims against the City of New York and instructed the Clerk of Court to substitute the City for the Department of Correction.
Motion for Reconsideration
Bey later filed a motion for miscellaneous relief, which the court treated as a motion asking it to reconsider the April 8 order. She asked the court to restore John Doe 1-1000 and Jane Doe 1-1000 as plaintiffs. She argued that proper screening and investigation of employees before hiring or appointment would have revealed a propensity to harm employees, the public, and her.
The court described reconsideration as an exceptional remedy. It is generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling law or facts that the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious injustice. The court found that Bey had not met this standard.
Reasons for Denial
Regarding the Doe claims, the court relied on its earlier explanation that a person representing herself without a lawyer may represent only her own interests. Regarding the Department of Correction, the court stated that the agency cannot be sued directly under New York City law. The court therefore concluded that the City of New York was the appropriate defendant and that substituting the City for the Department of Correction was proper.
Disposition
The court denied Bey’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at docket 16 and mail the order to Bey at the address on file. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order on April 21, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.