Frank S. Drayton v. City of New York, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 11/13/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : FRANK S. DRAYTON, : : Plaintiff, : 1:25-cv-5264-GHW : -v- : ORDER : CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On June 24, 2025, Plaintiff Frank S. Drayton, proceeding pro se, filed this action asserting claims for damages, which the Court construed as asserting claims for federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 8, 2025, the Court directed Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, to determine the full identity and badge number of each of the unidentified Defendants within 60 days of that order. Dkt. No. 6 at 4. The Court further ordered that Mr. Drayton must file an amended complaint “naming the newly identified individuals as defendants and providing their badge numbers” within 30 days of receiving the full identify of the unidentified Defendants. Id. On October 9, 2025, counsel for Defendants identified by name and badge number those unidentified Defendants.

On October 10, 2025, the Court reminded Mr. Drayton that “if he wishes for his case to proceed, he must file an amended complaint that complies with the Court’s August 8, 2025 order no later than November 10, 2025.” Dkt No. 13. Mr. Drayton has not submitted an amended complaint. Mindful that Mr. Drayton is proceeding pro se, the Court extends the deadline for Mr. Drayton to file any amended complaint to November 26, 2025.

If Mr. Drayton does not file an amended complaint by that date, the will Court understand that he does not wish to pursue claims against any of the newly identified individual defendants and will dismiss Mr. Drayton’s claims against those defendants. Mr. Drayton’s case will then proceed only against the City of New York and the two named individual defendants.

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, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2025 New York, New York ——atttaeghl robs —— United States District Judge