Genao v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-00303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Genao v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Figueredo ordered defendants to address exhaustion issues before seeking another summary-judgment motion.
The defendants must submit the ordered letter addressing waiver, estoppel, and the timing of their exhaustion argument. The plaintiff's opposition to the request remains noted, but the order does not decide the request or the exhaustion issue.
What happened
In Genao v. City of New York, the defendants asked for permission to file a second motion seeking judgment without a trial. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the defendants had not shown the required good reason to change the case schedule.
The order focused on the requirement that prisoners generally complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing certain lawsuits. It noted that defendants may lose the ability to rely on that requirement if they waived it or acted in a way that prevents them from raising it later.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the defendants to file a letter by July 19, 2024, addressing waiver, estoppel, and whether their failure to raise the exhaustion argument earlier—including in their first summary-judgment motion—prevents them from raising it now. The order did not state that the request for a second summary-judgment motion was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Genao v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00303
- Analisa Torres
- July 8, 2024
Background
On June 21, 2024, the defendants asked for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial because the moving party claims there is no genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that the defendants had not shown good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to amend the scheduling order.
Issue Identified by the Court
The order discussed exceptions to the exhaustion requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That requirement generally concerns whether a prisoner completed available administrative grievance procedures before pursuing certain claims in court. The order noted that a defendant may waive the failure-to-exhaust defense or may be prevented from asserting it later if the defendant acted in a way that creates estoppel. The court directed the defendants to address whether they waived or are estopped from raising the defense and whether their failure to raise the exhaustion argument earlier—including during their first summary-judgment motion—affects their ability to raise it at this stage.
Order
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered the defendants to submit a letter addressing those issues by no later than July 19, 2024. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied permission to file the second summary-judgment motion. It also does not decide whether the exhaustion defense was waived, barred by estoppel, or otherwise available.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.