Reid v. The City of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-09243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reid v. The City, Judge Failla denied Cedric Reid’s motion to revisit an earlier denial and granted City defendants extra response time.
Cedric Reid’s request to revisit the February 23, 2024 order was denied. The City defendants received an extension of time for their response to Reid’s earlier motion, subject to the condition stated in the order.
What happened
In Reid v. The City of New York, the court had previously granted defendants’ motions to dismiss Cedric Reid’s amended complaint. The court later denied Reid’s request for relief from that dismissal and his request to file a second amended complaint.
Reid then asked the court to reconsider the February 23, 2024 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. He argued that the earlier order should be changed, but the opinion does not describe his specific arguments.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Reid’s motion because the February 23 order had already addressed the issues he raised. The court also granted the City defendants an extension of time, effective September 11, 2023, to file a response to Reid’s earlier motion if that response was late.
The detailed version
- Reid v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09243
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 24, 2024
Background
On July 27, 2022, the court granted motions filed by two groups of defendants to dismiss Cedric Reid’s amended complaint. Reid later sought relief from that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which permits relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances. He also asked for permission under Rule 15(a)(2) to file a proposed second amended complaint.
On February 23, 2024, the court denied both requests. On April 3, 2024, Reid filed another motion, this time seeking relief from the February 23 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. The opinion does not set out the specific arguments in that motion.
Ruling
The court stated that the February 23 order sufficiently addressed the issues raised in Reid’s April 3 motion. It therefore denied Reid’s motion for relief from that order for the reasons given in the February 23 order.
In a footnote, the court also stated that, to the extent the City defendants’ response to Reid’s earlier motion was late, it granted the City defendants an extension of time to file that response, effective as of September 11, 2023, the date Reid received it through legal mail. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Reid a copy of the order at his address of record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.