Mitchell v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-04348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mitchell v. City of New York, Judge Liman allowed an amended complaint, denied the earlier dismissal motion as moot, and ordered identification of unnamed defendants.
Kareem Mitchell; the defendants; Jane Doe, CO Davis, and CO Guzman, whose identities and badge numbers must be investigated; and the City Law Department, which must provide the required information.
What happened
In Mitchell v. City of New York, Kareem Mitchell asked to file a Third Amended Complaint. The defendants argued that changing the complaint would serve no purpose because it would not meet the legal requirements for a claim.
The court granted Mitchell’s request to amend. It also denied the previously filed motion to dismiss as moot, meaning the court did not decide that motion because the complaint was being amended. The court ordered the City Law Department to identify three unnamed defendants and provide their badge numbers.
The Law Department must provide that information to Mitchell and the court within 60 days. Mitchell then has 30 days after receiving it to file a Fourth Amended Complaint naming those defendants. Judge Lewis J. Liman also stayed the defendants’ deadline to answer or seek dismissal until one of two specified events occurs.
The detailed version
- Mitchell v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-04348
- Lewis Liman
- May 16, 2024
Background
Kareem Mitchell moved for permission to file a Third Amended Complaint. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that amendment would be futile because the proposed complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Court’s ruling
The court granted Mitchell’s motion for leave to amend. It stated that it was not prepared to find that the amendment would be obviously futile and that further briefing could benefit the court if the defendants later chose to seek dismissal.
Because the complaint was being amended, the court denied the previously filed motion to dismiss as moot. The court did not decide whether the complaint stated a valid claim.
Identifying unnamed defendants
The court ordered the City Law Department to ascertain the identities and badge numbers of Jane Doe, CO Davis, and CO Guzman. Within 60 days, the Law Department must provide that information to Mitchell and the court.
If those individuals are current or former Department of Correction employees or officials, the Law Department must state that an electronic request for waiver of service may be made under the applicable electronic-service agreement rather than by personal service at a Department of Correction facility. If they are not current or former employees or officials but work or worked at a Department of Correction facility, the Law Department must provide a residential address where they may be served.
Within 30 days after receiving the identifying information, Mitchell must file a Fourth Amended Complaint properly naming the three defendants. After that filing, the court may issue an order asking those defendants to waive service.
Other directions and disposition
The deadlines for the defendants to answer or move to dismiss are stayed until the earlier of: (1) Mitchell files the Fourth Amended Complaint, or (2) Mitchell submits that he does not wish to proceed against the unserved defendants and instead wishes to proceed only under the Third Amended Complaint. The clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 23 and 28 and mail a copy of the order to Mitchell. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on May 16, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.