Oduka v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MEZIE ODUKA, Plaintiff, 25-CV-6875 (LTS) -against- ORDER DANISHA DAVIS, ET AL., Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Mezie Oduka (“Oduka”) originally brought this action along with co-plaintiff Jimmy Avila. See Avila v. Davis, No. 25-CV-3316 (PAE) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y.) (“Avila”). That action was assigned to District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer and referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. By order dated July 25, 2025, Magistrate Judge Parker granted Plaintiffs’ requests to amend their complaint, and directed them to file an amended complaint by August 24, 2025. (ECF 15.)1 By order dated August 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Parker severed Oduka’s claims from those of Mr. Avila, and directed the Clerk of Court to open Oduka’s claims as a new civil action. (ECF 2.) That new action was assigned this docket number, and, on August 26, 2025, the case was assigned to the undersigned.

On August 27, 2025, Oduka filed a letter in Avila addressed to Magistrate Judge Parker in which he requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF 19.) The Court grants that request.

1 The relevant orders from Avila have also been docketed in this action.

The Court directs Oduka to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. If he does not file an amended complaint by the prescribed deadline, and does not request a further extension of time, the Court will treat the original complaint as the operative pleading and proceed accordingly.

CONCLUSION The Court grants Plaintiff Mezie Oduka an extension of time to file an amended complaint. He must file his amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. If he does not file an amended complaint by the prescribed deadline, and does not request a further extension of time, the Court will treat the original complaint as the operative pleading and proceed accordingly.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge