Davidson v. Office of Court Administration
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-08936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, Judge Figueredo granted one motion, partly granted and partly denied another, and denied a temporary restraining order.
Ronald Davidson, Judge Joseph A. Zayas as the substituted public-official defendant, and the other defendants in the continuing federal case.
What happened
In Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, Ronald Davidson asked the court to recognize that a New York City Civil Court had appointed a guardian ad litem for him. He told the court that he opposed that appointment and was not asking for a guardian in this federal case. The court granted that request only to acknowledge the appointment.
Davidson also asked to replace Tamiko Amaker with Joseph A. Zayas as a defendant because Zayas became Chief Administrative Judge. The court granted that motion in part and denied it in part, substituted Zayas under the rule governing changes in public officials sued in their official capacities, and said no further substitution motions were needed if other such officials left office. The court denied Davidson’s request for a temporary restraining order because he had not shown that he was likely to succeed on the merits.
Judge Valerie Figueredo also gave Davidson until January 2, 2024, to file a second amended complaint and directed defendants to respond by February 2, 2024, if he did so. The court directed the clerk to terminate the three motions.
The detailed version
- Davidson v. Office of Court Administration · No. 1:22-cv-08936
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
Ronald Davidson filed three motions while this case was pending:
- A motion asking the court to take judicial notice of the appointment of a guardian ad litem for him in a New York City Civil Court matter.
- A motion asking to replace the Honorable Tamiko Amaker with the Honorable Joseph A. Zayas as a public-official defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
- A motion seeking a temporary restraining order and an order requiring defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
The opinion states that Davidson objected to the guardian ad litem’s appointment in the state-court matter and confirmed that he was not seeking appointment of a guardian in this federal case.
Judicial Notice
The court explained that judicial notice permits a court to recognize facts that are not reasonably disputable because they are generally known or can be reliably determined from accurate sources. It is not a way to establish legal principles. The court granted Davidson’s motion at ECF No. 40 to the limited extent that it acknowledged that a guardian ad litem had been appointed for him in the New York City Civil Court matter.
Substitution of Public Official
The case originally named Judge Tamiko Amaker in her official capacity as Acting Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Unified Court System. The opinion states that Judge Joseph A. Zayas became Chief Administrative Judge in May 2023. Under Rule 25(d), when a public official sued in an official capacity leaves that office, the successor is automatically substituted in the official’s place.
The court granted in part and denied in part Davidson’s motion at ECF No. 42 and substituted Judge Zayas as a named defendant. The court directed that the caption be updated. It also stated that Davidson did not need to make additional motions to substitute currently named defendants if they later left public office while the case was pending.
Temporary Restraining Order
Davidson sought an order directing the Unified Court System defendants to stop actions that he alleged violated regulations identified as 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160 and 35.164. He also sought an order requiring those defendants to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
The court explained that a temporary restraining order requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest. The court stated that the standard is the same as for a preliminary injunction and that irreparable harm must be likely and imminent rather than remote or speculative.
After reviewing Davidson’s submissions and conferring with the parties at a September 27, 2023 conference, the court found that Davidson had not established that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court therefore denied the motion at ECF No. 43.
Further Proceedings
The court gave Davidson leave to file a second amended complaint by January 2, 2024. If he filed one, defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by February 2, 2024. The court also stated that Davidson could submit a letter requesting an accommodation if he needed one during that period. The clerk was directed to terminate the three motions.
Disposition
The motion for judicial notice was granted to the limited extent described above. The motion to substitute Judge Zayas was granted in part and denied in part. The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.