Taylor v. NYC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U DOSD CC U MSD EN NY T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: ROY TAYLOR, DATE FILED: 8/30/20 21 Plaintiff, 20-cv-05036 (MKV) -v.- ORDER NEW YORK CITY, Defendant. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL,District Judge: Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 21. In response, Plaintiff has sought to amend his complaint and to stay his time to respond to the motion to dismiss. See ECF Nos. 25, 29, 39. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file, on or before September 30, 2021, an amended complaint containing all claims and information on which he seeks to rely in this case. To the extent Plaintiff seeks discovery from the City related to his claims, Plaintiff may file a letter to the Court requesting leave to seek documents or other evidence. Anyletter must clearly define what information Plaintiff seeks from the City. Once Plaintiff’s amended complainthas been filed, the City of New York must respond to the complaint within the time specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the City has indicated that it intends to move to dismiss any new complaint [ECF No. 34 at 3], the City may file a motion to dismiss any new complaint without filing a pre-motion letter in advance. In light of the expected amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint, the City’s pending motion to dismiss the complaint [ECF No.21] is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff also has moved [ECF Nos. 26, 35, 42, 44] for the Court to reconsider the order denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. See Order Denying Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 17. To the extent Plaintiff seeks for the Court to revisit that order, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has not met his burden to show “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Doe v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983) (quotation marks omitted). For the reasons stated in the Court’s February 8, 2021 Opinion and Order, Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the Court’s previous decision are denied. The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to close the motions at ECF Nos. 21, 25, 26, 29, 34, 35, 39, 42 and 44,

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2021 New York, New York / (/ Lye Tess Koa Valea United‘States District Judge