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

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Boca OY BILED nee X DATE FILED: 12/2/2025 FRANK S. DRAYTON, Plaintiff, 1:25-cv-5264-GHW -v- ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK, ¢e/a/, Defendants. 2 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. On November 13, 2025, “mindful that Mr. Drayton ts proceeding pro se,” the Court extended the deadline for Mr. Drayton to file any amended complaint to November 26, 2025. Dkt. No. 17. In that November 13, 2025 order, the Court stated that, “[i]f Mr. Drayton does not file an amended complaint by [November 26, 2025], 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.” Id. Mr. Drayton has not submitted an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Mr. Drayton’s claims against Defendant “Unidentified Other Officers” and Defendant “Transporting Latino Responding Officer” without prejudice. ‘The Clerk of Court is directed to remove Defendants “Unidentified Other Officers” and “Transporting Latino Responding Officer” from the caption of this case. ‘The remaining Defendants’ deadline to answer or move to dismiss the complaint is twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. Defendants need not file a pre- motion conference letter prior to filing any such motion to dismiss. If Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, Plaintiff’s opposition 1s due no later than four weeks from the date of service of Defendants’ motion; and Defendants’ reply, if any, is due one week after the date of service of Plaintiff’s opposition. If Mr. Drayton fails to oppose any motion by the date specified, the Court will consider Defendant’s motion as unopposed. ‘The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

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: December 2, 2025 New York, New York United States District Judge