Caldwell v. City of New York

Background

Emmett Caldwell, proceeding without a lawyer, alleges that six fellow students sexually abused him at public school P.S. 123 in 1965. He alleges that school employees and officials knew about the incidents but failed to discipline the students or prevent further harm. Caldwell alleges continuing physical and emotional pain and seeks money damages from the City of New York, unidentified New York City Board of Education personnel, the P.S. 123 principal and after-school supervisors, and the six students.

The court had previously denied Caldwell’s requests to serve unidentified defendants by publishing notice, to require the City Defendants to accept service for those defendants, and to impose sanctions based on the City Defendants’ refusal to do so. The court also previously denied a request for a stay. Judge Liman had separately denied Caldwell’s request to vacate an earlier order and his request that Judge Liman be removed from the case. In February 2023, the court ordered Caldwell to appear for a remote deposition after granting the City Defendants’ motion to compel his deposition.

Motions Before the Court

Caldwell filed two letters containing numerous requests. The court treated them as motions for reconsideration, entry of default, compelled arbitration, a stay, removal of Magistrate Judge Aaron, sanctions, discovery-related relief, expert-witness assistance, amendment of the complaint to seek punitive damages, and other relief.

Reconsideration

Caldwell again sought an order requiring the City Defendants to accept service for the unidentified defendants. Because the court had already denied that request, it treated the new request as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and generally is not available to relitigate an issue or present new theories. The court found that Caldwell had not identified any controlling decisions or information the court had overlooked, and it denied reconsideration.

Entry of Default

Caldwell sought default against the unidentified defendants, arguing that they had failed to respond and that the City Defendants had not accepted service or provided certain documents. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, a party generally cannot be in default for failing to respond before being served with a summons. The court found that the unidentified defendants had not been served and therefore had no obligation to respond. It denied the requests for entry of default. The court also noted that the City Defendants had answered the complaint, defended the case, and participated in discovery, so their conduct did not support default against them.

Arbitration

The court denied the requests to compel arbitration because arbitration depends on an agreement, and Caldwell had identified no contract between the parties, much less one requiring arbitration.

Stay

The court denied Caldwell’s renewed request for a stay because he again had not established satisfactory grounds for pausing the case.

Removal of Magistrate Judge Aaron

Caldwell sought Magistrate Judge Aaron’s removal based on alleged failures to enforce an order that did not exist, refusal to permit service by publication, denial of a stay, discovery-related requirements, and alleged insulting laughter. The court explained that removal is required when a reasonable, fully informed observer would question the judge’s impartiality or when the judge has qualifying personal bias. It found that disagreements with the judge’s rulings and the conduct described by Caldwell did not show the deep-seated favoritism or antagonism required for removal. The court denied the request. To the extent Caldwell again sought Judge Liman’s removal, the court noted that Judge Liman had already considered and denied that request.

Sanctions and Remaining Requests

The court denied sanctions against former and current defense counsel because the conduct Caldwell described did not warrant sanctions. It also denied the remaining issues raised in his motions. The court rejected Caldwell’s request to compel judicial training under New York’s Child Victims Act, explaining that the statute concerns the time limit for certain child sexual-abuse cases and contains no judicial-training provision.

Disposition

The court denied Caldwell’s motions at docket entries 70 and 72 in their entirety.