Bolden v. John/Jane Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-10555
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bolden v. Westchester County Board of Ethics, Judge Swain granted 45 days to amend but denied other requests without prejudice.
Rhonda Bolden, whose deadline to file a second amended complaint was extended by 45 days, while her other requests were denied without prejudice and fee-free status for an appeal was denied.
What happened
In Rhonda Bolden v. Westchester County New York Board of Ethics, Rhonda Bolden, representing herself and without paying the filing fee, had been allowed to file a second amended complaint after the court dismissed her amended complaint. She asked for 45 more days to prepare it.
Bolden’s letter also sought various other forms of relief, including unspecified accommodations, limits on public access to the case, court-requested free legal representation, a hearing, emergency relief, damages, summary judgment, and a settlement conference. The court said some requests repeated ones it had previously addressed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the 45-day extension and required Bolden to file the second amended complaint within that period. Judge Swain denied the remaining requests without prejudice, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Bolden v. John/Jane Doe · No. 1:22-cv-10555
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
Rhonda Bolden, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, began the case on December 13, 2022, by filing a 2,500-page complaint that did not name a defendant. The court ordered her to file an amended complaint. After she filed that pleading, the court dismissed it on June 12, 2023, but allowed her 60 days to replead certain claims in a second amended complaint.
On August 11, 2023, Bolden sent a letter requesting, among other things, an additional 45 days to file the second amended complaint. She said she needed more time for research, analysis, and preparing her legal argument. The court reminded her that the second amended complaint did not need legal analysis, legal arguments, or case citations; it needed to state the facts as directed in the June 12 order.
Requests in the Letter
The letter also appeared to request unspecified reasonable accommodations; restrictions on the case and concealment from public access; judicial notice and a hearing; exclusion of evidence allegedly obtained unlawfully; emergency relief; special damages and summary judgment; appointment of free legal counsel; a motion to keep the proceedings focused; and a settlement conference.
The court noted that Bolden had made similar requests earlier. It had previously said it would consider reasonable-accommodation requests as the case proceeded, denied her request for the court to seek free counsel without prejudice to renewal, and denied without prejudice her request to seal the action and proceed under a pseudonym. The court also stated that Bolden could ask to file a specific document under seal if it contained sensitive information.
Ruling
The court granted Bolden’s request for a 45-day extension. It directed her to file the second amended complaint within 45 days of the order’s date and required that pleading to comply with the standards in the June 12 order of dismissal.
The court denied without prejudice Bolden’s requests for unspecified reasonable accommodations, restrictions or concealment of the case, and court-requested free counsel, for the reasons stated in its earlier orders. It denied her remaining requests without prejudice because they were procedurally improper at that stage and lacked merit. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.