Malletier S.A. v. The City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-03165
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Skiboky S. v. City of New York, Judge Rochon stayed the civil case until related criminal proceedings end.
Skiboky Stora, the City of New York, and the other defendants in the civil-rights lawsuit are affected because the civil case is paused while the underlying criminal proceedings continue.
What happened
Skiboky S. v. The City of New York concerns a civil-rights lawsuit arising from an arrest, a search-warrant execution, and a prosecution. The City asked the court to pause the lawsuit while the related criminal case continued.
The City argued that the criminal and civil cases involve overlapping questions, including probable cause, the search warrant, the prosecution, and the force used during the arrest. It also argued that continuing civil discovery could affect S.’s protection against self-incrimination and interfere with the criminal prosecution. S. was representing himself and did not agree to the request.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the City’s request for a stay. The case will remain paused until the criminal proceedings conclude, and the City must provide an update on their status on August 13, 2024, and every 60 days afterward.
The detailed version
- Malletier S.A. v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03165
- Rochon
- June 26, 2024
Background
Skiboky S. filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials. The complaint concerns an arrest, execution of a search warrant, and initiation of a prosecution between March and April 2024. The defendants identified in the City’s motion included the State of New York, the City of New York, New York City Police Department personnel, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Assistant District Attorney Chandler Castro, and Attorney Stephen William Edwards.
The City asked the court to stay, or pause, the civil case until the criminal proceedings arising from the arrest and related warrant execution concluded. The City alternatively requested a retroactive 62-day extension to respond to the complaint. The opinion states that S. was proceeding without a lawyer and did not consent to the stay request.
Reasons for the Stay
The City argued that the civil and criminal matters substantially overlap. The overlapping issues included whether there was probable cause to arrest S., obtain a search warrant for S.’s home, and initiate a prosecution, as well as whether the force used during the arrest was reasonable. The City also argued that civil discovery could implicate S.’s Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination, prejudice the criminal prosecution, and burden the defendants because the District Attorney’s file was not then available to them.
The opinion states that the criminal case was still open and that a court appearance was scheduled for August 6, 2024. The court also considered the public interest and efficient management of the case. The City argued that allowing the criminal case to proceed first could avoid interference with criminal discovery and could affect whether some civil claims remained viable.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the City’s request for a stay. The civil case is stayed pending the conclusion of S.’s underlying criminal proceedings. The order requires the City to provide a status update on August 13, 2024, and every 60 days thereafter, until those proceedings conclude. The opinion does not state a ruling on the City’s alternative request for a 62-day extension.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.