Davis v. Horton
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-00885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Davis v. Horton, Judge Figueredo ordered a pro se plaintiff to document liability and damages after defendants’ default was entered, without yet entering judgment.
Andre Jamel Davis, who had to submit evidence and explanations supporting liability, damages, and costs; and the four defendant police officers, who could respond by August 10, 2023.
What happened
In Davis v. Horton, Andre Jamel Davis, representing himself, sued four New York City police officers under federal civil-rights laws. He alleged that the officers stopped and detained him and towed his car, which was damaged while in police custody.
The defendants did not appear or respond by the deadline. The Clerk entered a certificate of default on April 12, 2023. The order required Davis to submit a memorandum explaining why default judgment should be entered, how each defendant was liable, and how he calculated his damages and litigation costs. The defendants could respond by August 10, 2023; the order did not itself enter default judgment.
Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the order. She stated that if the defendants did not respond, the court would prepare a report and recommendation about liability and damages based only on Davis’s written submissions, and would not hold a damages hearing unless the defendants requested one in writing by August 10.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Horton · No. 1:23-cv-00885
- John Cronan
- Apr. 26, 2023
Background
Andre Jamel Davis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against Sergeant Horton, Police Officer Gonzalez, Police Officer Calle Jean, and Police Officer Sedita. Davis alleged that the officers, who were assigned to the New York City Police Department’s 50th Precinct, stopped and detained him and towed his car. He further alleged that the car was damaged while it was in police possession.
Davis served the defendants through a process server at the 50th Precinct Station House. After the defendants failed to appear or respond to the complaint, Davis requested entry of a clerk’s certificate of default. The Clerk signed and entered the certificate on April 12, 2023.
Order
The order did not enter default judgment. Instead, it directed Davis to serve the defendants and file, by June 26, 2023, a memorandum explaining why default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 was warranted. For each claim, Davis was required to explain how the complaint’s allegations established each defendant’s liability.
The order also required Davis to connect each proposed damages amount to the claim supporting liability, explain how he calculated the amount, and provide a sworn affidavit or declaration made under penalty of perjury. That submission was to include documentary evidence supporting the damages. If Davis sought litigation costs, such as filing or process-server fees, he was required to provide invoices or other documentation showing the amounts incurred.
The defendants were allowed to submit a response by August 10, 2023. If they did not respond, the court stated that it would proceed to issue a report and recommendation concerning liability and damages for a possible default judgment based only on Davis’s written submission. The court also stated that it would not hold a damages hearing unless the defendants requested one in writing by that date.
Effect of the Order
The order established the next steps for deciding whether Davis could obtain default judgment and, if so, how much he could recover. It did not finally decide the defendants’ liability, award damages, or resolve the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.