Thompson v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-08202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thompson v. City of New York, Judge Rochon partly granted Thompson’s amendment request and denied defendants’ conference request without prejudice.
Eon Thompson and the defendants in the case, including the City of New York; the order also directs a magistrate judge to coordinate service and discovery.
What happened
In Thompson v. City of New York, the court clarified and replaced an earlier order after the parties asked what that order meant. Eon Thompson was representing himself and asked for permission to file a second amended complaint, while the defendants sought a conference about a planned dismissal motion.
The court granted Thompson’s request to amend in part and ordered him to file the second amended complaint no later than December 5, 2022. The opinion does not specify which part of his request was not granted. The court denied the defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference without prejudice to refiling after December 5.
Judge Rochon also referred the parties to a magistrate judge for general pretrial matters and non-dispositive motions, including coordinating service and discovery. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 65 and mail Thompson a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08202
- Rochon
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
The parties asked the court to clarify its October 20, 2022 order. This amended order superseded that earlier order. The court considered a joint letter submitted in response to a September 28, 2022 reassignment order.
On May 15, 2022, the defendants filed a pre-motion letter requesting a conference about an anticipated motion to dismiss. On June 6, 2022, Eon Thompson, who was proceeding without a lawyer, asked for permission to file a second amended complaint within 65 days after any order granting that request.
Rulings
The court granted Thompson’s request to amend in part. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which generally provides that permission to amend should be freely given, and noting that self-represented litigants should receive a reasonable opportunity to show that they have a valid claim, the court ordered Thompson to file the second amended complaint no later than December 5, 2022. The opinion does not identify which portion of the amendment request was not granted.
The court denied the defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference without prejudice to refiling after December 5, 2022. The court also stated that, because of issues involving effective service and because no discovery had occurred, it would refer the parties under a separate order to a magistrate judge for general pretrial matters and non-dispositive motions, including coordination of service and discovery.
Other Directions
The clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 65 and mail a copy of the amended order to Thompson. This order addressed amendment, conference, and case-management matters; it did not decide the underlying claims or the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.