Doe v. The City of New York

Background

The court had previously denied requests that it construed as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. It also denied a request to seal one of Doe’s earlier letters. Those denials were without prejudice to filing a motion to proceed under a pseudonym or under seal, provided that the motion included both redacted and unredacted versions of an amended complaint complying with the court’s October 3, 2022, order.

The court had also denied Doe’s request for immediate injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal after an amended complaint was filed, and had given Doe an additional 30 days to file that complaint. On November 24, 2022, Doe requested another extension of time. The order states that Doe was proceeding without a lawyer.

Rulings

The court granted Doe’s request for an extension of time. It directed Doe to file an amended complaint complying with the October 3, 2022, order within 30 days of the December 1 order. Any motion to proceed under a pseudonym or under seal had to include both a redacted and an unredacted version of a compliant amended complaint.

The court stated that no further extensions would be granted. It warned that failure to comply with either the December 1 order or the October 3 order within the allowed time would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This order did not resolve the merits of Doe’s claims.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.