Robinson v. City of New York
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-03283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Robinson v. City of New York, Judge Ho adjourned the conference, set a deadline for objections, and did not decide the requested stay.
Christopher Robinson, the City of New York, and the unidentified John and Jane Doe defendants are affected by the scheduling deadlines and the unresolved request to pause the civil case.
What happened
In Robinson v. City of New York, Christopher Robinson sued the City of New York and unidentified officers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging an unlawful search and seizure, excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of a fair trial. The City said Robinson’s related criminal case was still pending.
The City asked the court to pause the civil case until the criminal case ended, excuse the parties from filing a proposed discovery schedule, and postpone the initial conference. Robinson’s lawyer did not agree to the requested pause and said Robinson would submit written objections.
Judge Ho adjourned the initial conference to July 2, 2024, ordered Robinson to respond to the requested stay by June 18, 2024, and required a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by June 25, 2024. The order did not decide whether to grant or deny the stay and directed the clerk to close ECF No. 10.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03283
- Ho
- June 14, 2024
Background
Christopher Robinson filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain violations of constitutional rights by government actors. He sued the City of New York and John and Jane Does. The complaint alleges that unidentified New York City police officers came to Robinson’s home, searched it without a warrant, found a blade in a plumbing toolkit, handcuffed him violently, took him to a police precinct, searched him, and used additional force. The complaint also alleges unlawful seizure and imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of the right to a fair trial.
The City’s June 13, 2024 letter stated that a related criminal prosecution was still pending. The letter identified two criminal case numbers based on information from the New York State Unified Court System’s database and stated that Robinson’s next criminal-court appearance was scheduled for August 5, 2024. The City also stated that the complaint’s alleged December 21, 2023 arrest date might be incorrect, but the court did not resolve that issue.
Requested stay
The City asked the court to stay, or pause, the entire civil case until the related criminal prosecution was resolved. The City argued that both matters arose from the same incident and that continuing the civil case could interfere with the criminal prosecution, including by affecting Robinson’s protection against compelled self-incrimination, expanding discovery beyond the criminal procedure rules, or revealing the defense strategy. The City also asked to be relieved of filing a proposed discovery schedule and asked the court to adjourn the June 18, 2024 initial conference.
Robinson’s counsel did not consent to the requested stay and indicated that written objections would be filed. The City’s letter also discussed releases relating to prior arrests and medical records under the court’s case-management plan, but the order did not decide any issue concerning those releases.
Court’s action
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference to July 2, 2024, at 12:30 p.m. The court ordered Robinson to file a response to the City’s stay request, limited to three pages, by June 18, 2024. The court also ordered the parties to file a joint letter, a proposed Civil Case Management Plan, and a proposed Scheduling Order by June 25, 2024. The order did not grant or deny the requested stay. It directed the clerk to close ECF No. 10.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.