Reyes v. City of New York et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED IN PART. Defendants' request is untimely under Individual Rule 2(e)(ii), which requires all requests for an extension of time to be made at least two business days prior to the relevant deadline. Defendants' letter states that their request for an extension of time is the first request of its kind. However, orders issued September 8, 2023, and October 10, 2023, granted two previous requests for an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. All Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to the operative Complaint by December 8, 2023. If Defendant s move to dismiss, Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a letter or brief in response by January 19, 2024. Plaintiff is apprised that as a pro se litigant, his submissions will be construed liberally to raise the strongest arguments that the y suggest. Defendants shall file any reply by February 2, 2024. In light of the procedural history of this case, Defendants are apprised that any further extensions are unlikely to be granted. So Ordered.. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 11/13/2023) (ks)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel

BY ECF
Honorable Dale E. Ho
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

ALEXANDRA CORSI
Senior Counsel
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

November 9, 2023

Re: DeQuan Reyes v. City of New York, et al.
23 Civ. 01145 (DEH)
Your Honor:
I am a Senior Counsel in the Office of the Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York, and the attorney for defendants the City of New York, Eric
Adams, Charlton Lemon, Louis Molina, Preston Ritter, Przemyslaw Wobsik, Kevin Young,
Jimmy Guan, Thomas Griffin, Tyrone Carter, Antoinette Cort, Willie McNeil, Tyneka Greene,
Moise Rivera, Joanne Matos, and Tiffany Morales (“defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. 1
Defendants write to respectfully request: (1) a thirty (30) day extension of time from November 9,
2023 to December 11, 2023 to file their anticipated motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 8(a) and
12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in lieu of filing an Answer; and (2) that the Court
sua sponte grant defendants Dawlin Rodriguez, Diashawn Harris, and Abraham Palermo a
corresponding extension to file their response to the complaint, which may also be a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 8(a) and 12(f). This is the first request of this kind, and because plaintiff
is proceeding pro se in this matter and is currently incarcerated, Ms. Kim was unable to contact
plaintiff for his consent to this request.

1

This case has been assigned to Assistant Corporation Counsel Esther Kim, who was recently
admitted to the New York bar, and is presently awaiting admission to the Southern District of New
York. Ms. Kim is handling this matter under my supervision and may be reached at (212) 3562340 or [e-mail].

By way of background, plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging inter alia, retaliation, negligence, deliberate indifference to medical care, a First
Amendment violation, and municipal liability claims arising from incidents on or about May 18,
2021 until on or about May 18, 2023. See ECF Nos. 7 and 41. In addition to the City and Mayor
Eric Adams, plaintiff also names 38 individuals as defendants in his 271 page Second Amended
Complaint. See ECF Nos. 7 and 41.
To the extent the Court requires a formal motion, defendants now seek a thirty (30)
day extension, until December 11, 2023 to submit a formal motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules
8(a)(2) and 12(f) due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the federal rules. As Your Honor is
aware, it is required that a complaint “contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “The statement should be plain because
the principal function of pleadings under the Federal Rules is to give the adverse party fair notice
of the claim asserted so as to enable him to answer and prepare for trial.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo,
861 F.2d 40, 41 (2d Cir. 1988); Da Costa v. Marcucilli, 675 F. App'x 15, 16 (2d Cir. 2017);
Kalderon v. Finkelstein, 495 F. App'x 103, 105 (2d Cir. 2012). The statement should be short
because “unnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the
party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of
verbiage.” Bender v. City of New York, 09-CV-3286, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103947, at *4-5
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2011) (quoting Shabtai v. Levande, 38 Fed. Appx. 684, 686 (2d Cir. 2002)
(citations omitted)).
While pro se complaints are generally liberally interpreted by courts, “‘the basic
requirements of Rule 8 apply to self-represented and counseled plaintiffs alike.’” Middleton v.
United States, 10-CV-6057, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152955, at *8, (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011)
(Report & Recommendation adopted by U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15117 (E.D.N.Y. February 7, 2012)
(quoting Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2004). When a complaint is not short and
plain, the Court has the power to strike any portions that are redundant or immaterial, or to dismiss
the complaint. See Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(f); Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42 (stating that it was within
the discretion of the District Court to dismiss pro se plaintiff’s 15 page, single-spaced complaint –
which the Court deemed to contain “a surfeit of detail” – for failure to comply with Rule 8).
“Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint is ‘so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise
unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.’” Middleton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
152955, at *8 (quoting Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42) (citing Iwachiw v. New York State Dep't of
Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 527-28 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of a pro se complaint
as unintelligible)).
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is both hand-written and typed and extends
to 271 single-spaced pages, including exhibits, and largely consists of run-on sentences of which
plaintiff presents unorganized, confusing, and at times illegible allegations that are repeated and
identical. See generally ECF Nos. 7 and 41. Plaintiff purports to attach forty-four (44) exhibits
extending his complaint by an additional 166 pages. See generally id. Plaintiff makes various
references to these exhibits throughout his Second Amended Complaint, however, the relevance
of many of these exhibits is unclear. Further, in plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, he repeats
identical sentences of his allegations and several pages of the Second Amended Complaint appear
to be duplicates. See generally id.
2

For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request: (1) a thirty (30) day
extension of time from November 9, 2023 to December 11, 2023 to file their anticipated motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 8(a) and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in lieu of filing
an Answer; and (2) that the Court sua sponte grant defendants Dawlin Rodriguez, Diashawn
Harris, and Abraham Palermo a corresponding extension to file their response to the complaint.
Should the Court be inclined to grant this request, defendants respectfully propose the following
briefing schedule:
Opening Brief:

December 11, 2023

Opposition:

January 10, 2024

Reply:

January 24, 2024

Defendants thank the Court for its time and consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alexandra Corsi
Alexandra Corsi
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
DeQuan Reyes
Plaintiff pro se
4411-804-847
Rikers Island: G.R.V.C.
09-09 Hazen Street
East Elmhurst, NY 11370

Application GRANTED IN PART. Defendants' request is untimely under Individual Rule 2(e)(ii), which requires
all requests for an extension of time to be made at least two business days prior to the relevant deadline.
Defendants' letter states that their request for an extension of time is the first request of its kind. However,
orders issued September 8, 2023, and October 10, 2023, granted two previous requests for an extension of
time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. All Defendants shall
answer, move, or otherwise respond to the operative Complaint by December 8, 2023. If Defendants move to
dismiss, Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a letter or brief in response by January 19, 2024. Plaintiff is
apprised that as a pro se litigant, his submissions will be construed liberally to raise the strongest arguments
that they suggest. Defendants shall file any reply by February 2, 2024. In light of the procedural history of this
case, Defendants are apprised that any further extensions are unlikely to be granted. So Ordered.

Dale E. Ho
United States District Judge
Dated: November 13, 2023
New York, New York