Davidson v. Office of Court Administration
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-08936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, Magistrate Judge Figueredo resolved an accommodation motion, granted leave to amend, and pursued pro bono counsel.
Ronald Davidson received a process for requesting disability accommodations, permission to file an amended complaint by July 7, 2023, and planned assistance in seeking limited pro bono counsel. The defendants were given 45 days after the amended complaint was filed to respond. The order did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, Ronald Davidson asked for disability-related accommodations while the case was pending and requested permission to file an amended complaint. The case was still in its early stages, and the defendants had not answered or moved to dismiss.
The court said it was willing to provide reasonable accommodations when Davidson requested them and treated the accommodation issues as resolved, directing the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. The court also granted Davidson leave to file an amended complaint by July 7, 2023, and said defendants must respond within 45 days after filing.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo said Davidson would benefit from limited pro bono assistance and would enter a separate order seeking counsel to help with the amended complaint and anticipated motion to dismiss. The order also directed that the conference transcript be provided to Davidson.
The detailed version
- Davidson v. Office of Court Administration · No. 1:22-cv-08936
- Paul Gardephe
- June 5, 2023
Background
Ronald Davidson had filed a motion requesting an interactive process to determine disability accommodations and procedural modifications. After a June 5, 2023 conference, the court stated that it was willing to provide reasonable accommodations during the case whenever Davidson requested them. The court therefore considered the issues raised in that motion resolved and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 4.
At the conference, Davidson also requested permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to file an amended complaint. The court noted that the case was in its early stages, the defendants had not yet answered or moved to dismiss the complaint, and Davidson was representing himself.
Rulings and Case Management
The court granted Davidson leave to file an amended complaint. It extended the deadline and ordered him to file the amended complaint by July 7, 2023. The defendants were ordered to respond no later than 45 days after the amended complaint was filed. The court also reminded Davidson that he could include newly identified defendants and supporting medical records as exhibits; any request to file medical records under seal had to be made in a separate letter.
The court stated that Davidson would benefit from appointed pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of helping him file an amended complaint and oppose the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. It said it would enter a separate order directing the Clerk of Court to seek such counsel. The court also said it would request the transcript of the June 5 conference and have it uploaded to the docket and sent directly to Davidson.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed accommodations, amendment of the pleading, possible limited-scope counsel, filing deadlines, and the conference transcript. It did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants or any anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.