Porath v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Porath v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Cave denied without prejudice requests for a response to the amended complaint and a parole-related hearing.
David K. Porath and the defendants in his case, including the City of New York, the Director of the Bellevue Shelter System, and New York State Parole Officer Akaneme.
What happened
In Porath v. City of New York, David K. Porath, who was representing himself, asked for a case update, copies of court documents, an order requiring defendants to respond to his amended complaint, and a hearing about getting a different parole officer. The Clerk had already processed his request for copies.
The court said that an earlier recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute was still awaiting review. Because of that pending recommendation, the court denied without prejudice Porath’s request to require defendants to respond. It also denied without prejudice his request for a hearing about his parole officer.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the Clerk to mail Porath a copy of the order and the earlier recommendation.
The detailed version
- Porath v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01302
- John Cronan
- Jan. 9, 2023
Requests Before the Court
David K. Porath, proceeding without a lawyer, sent the court a letter reporting a new address and requesting four things: a status update; courtesy copies of the docket sheet, his complaint, and his amended complaint; an order requiring the defendants to respond to the amended complaint; and a hearing about his request to report to a different parole officer.
Court’s Rulings
The court noted that the Clerk had processed Porath’s request for courtesy copies. It also noted that, on November 22, 2022, the court had recommended dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Porath had failed to prosecute the case. That recommendation remained pending before Judge John P. Cronan. The court therefore denied without prejudice Porath’s request for an order directing the defendants to respond to the amended complaint.
The court also denied without prejudice Porath’s request for a hearing concerning a different parole officer. In citing earlier decisions, the court stated that parole conditions generally are discretionary and are not subject to judicial review without a showing that parole officials acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The court did not make a final ruling on the pending recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint in this order.
Other Direction
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave directed the Clerk of Court to mail Porath copies of the order and the report and recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.