Doe v. The City of New York

Background

Tequan Doe filed this action while representing himself and using the name “Tequan Doe.” In an earlier order, the court denied his request to proceed under a pseudonym and directed him to file an amended complaint using his legal name and providing his postal address, email address, and telephone number. The court also told defendants that they did not need to respond until after Doe filed a compliant amended complaint.

Doe then filed a letter asking the court to pause the amendment deadline for 60 days, allow him to seek permission to proceed anonymously or under seal, and seal the letter itself. He also sought immediate injunctive relief—an emergency court order—concerning the alleged failure of health-care-provider defendants and their counsel to provide medical records. The opinion states that his underlying claims concern an alleged request for a New York City Police Department “wellness check” and the actions of health-care-provider and police-officer defendants during that incident.

Rulings on reconsideration and reopening the earlier order

The court treated Doe’s letter as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and as a request for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denied reconsideration as untimely because the earlier order was entered on October 4, 2022, and Doe filed his letter on October 20, two days after the 14-day deadline.

The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) because Doe did not show that any of those grounds applied. It also denied Rule 60(b)(6) relief because he did not demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for that form of relief. The denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief was without prejudice to filing a properly supported motion to proceed under a pseudonym or under seal, accompanied by redacted and unredacted versions of a compliant amended complaint.

Request to seal the letter

The court denied Doe’s request to seal his letter, without prejudice. It treated the letter as a judicial document because it addressed whether the letter should be sealed and whether Doe should be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym. The court explained that court documents generally carry a presumption of public access and found that the letter’s contents were not sufficiently extraordinary to overcome that presumption. The court also noted that the letter and complaint were already publicly available on the docket.

Immediate injunctive relief

The court denied Doe’s application for immediate injunctive relief, without prejudice to renewal after he files a compliant amended complaint. The court stated that emergency relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court found that neither the complaint nor Doe’s later submissions showed the required likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions.

Other directives and disposition

The court denied Doe’s request for a 60-day stay of the earlier order. Because Doe was representing himself, however, the court granted him an additional 30 days from October 26, 2022, to file an amended complaint complying with the earlier order. Defendants were not required to respond before that filing. The court stated that it would dismiss the action without prejudice if Doe did not file an amended complaint within the allowed time.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order. The order addressed procedural and interim requests and did not decide the merits of Doe’s underlying claims.