Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-02675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Adams v. Co-Op City, Judge Moses granted defendants’ deadline extension and denied Adams’s request for recusal.
The defendants received more time to file their summary-judgment motion while they obtained the remaining state-court records. Adams’s request for Judge Moses’s recusal was denied, and the underlying claims were not decided by this order.
What happened
In Adams v. Co-Op City Department of Public Safety, Edward P. Adams, representing himself, seeks damages over alleged unlawful searches, excessive force, false arrests, and malicious prosecution. Discovery was nearly complete, but defendants had not received some of Adams’s state-court records.
Defendants asked for more time to file their summary-judgment motion because the Bronx Criminal Court had not yet produced records for three arrests. Adams opposed the extension and asked for a conference; he also asked Judge Moses to step aside, citing prior scheduling and discovery rulings and calling them unfair.
Judge Moses granted defendants’ request and denied Adams’s recusal motion. The parties’ summary-judgment motions were due 30 days after defendants received the remaining records. Judge Moses also required defendants to provide a status update if the records had not arrived by August 1, 2024.
The detailed version
- Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety · No. 1:21-cv-02675
- Barbara Moses
- July 9, 2024
Background
Edward P. Adams, proceeding without a lawyer, seeks damages from Riverbay Corporation, the Co-Op City Department of Public Safety, and several Co-Op City police officers. His claims concern alleged unlawful searches, excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, including alleged fabrication of evidence. Discovery was complete except that defendants had not received state-court records concerning some of the arrests and prosecutions at issue.
Defendants’ request for more time
Defendants moved by letter for an extension of their July 19, 2024 deadline to file a motion for summary judgment. They said they had diligently sought Adams’s state-court records after obtaining the required authorizations on May 17, 2024. The Bronx Criminal Court informed defendants that records concerning three arrests—March 20, 2018; March 25, 2018; and March 20, 2020—were in archives and would take about four more weeks to produce.
Adams opposed the extension, emphasizing that he had timely complied with the court’s authorization order and wanted to file his own summary-judgment motion. He also challenged the format and authenticity of records produced so far and complained about his deposition transcript. Judge Moses found those complaints did not justify denying the extension. The court noted that defendants had sought the authorizations earlier, had pursued the records diligently after receiving them, and had represented that they provided Adams the records in the same form in which they received them.
The court granted defendants’ letter-motion. The parties’ summary-judgment motions were due 30 days after defendants received the remaining state-court records, and defendants had to promptly notify the court when the records arrived. If they had not arrived by August 1, 2024, defendants had to submit a status letter.
Recusal request
Adams also asked Judge Moses to recuse herself under 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Judge Moses explained that prior judicial rulings generally are not a valid basis for recusal unless they show an extreme inability to decide the case fairly.
The court concluded that Adams identified no valid basis for recusal. His objections showed disagreement with prior scheduling and discovery decisions, including decisions granting defendants additional time, but did not establish judicial bias or improper motivation. The court therefore denied Adams’s cross-motion for recusal. The order did not decide the underlying claims for damages or the anticipated summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.