Hoskins v. City of New York
- Garnett
- 1:23-cv-02958
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Hoskins v. City of New York: Judge Garnett granted an adjournment, moving the post-discovery conference to April 24, 2025.
The parties and their counsel are affected. The post-discovery conference was moved to April 24, 2025, the plaintiff’s responsive pre-motion letter is due April 8, 2025, and the court warned that further adjournments require extraordinary circumstances.
What happened
In Hoskins v. City of New York, the defendants asked to move a post-discovery conference and use the rescheduled conference to discuss an expected summary-judgment motion. The plaintiff consented.
The defendants described the plaintiff’s claims as alleging inadequate withdrawal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They argued that the plaintiff received withdrawal services and later entered a methadone program, but the court did not decide those issues in this order.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the request to adjourn the conference until April 24, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. The plaintiff must file a responsive pre-motion letter by April 8, 2025, and the court warned that no further adjournments will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
The detailed version
- Hoskins v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-02958
- Garnett
- Mar. 25, 2025
What the parties requested
Defense counsel asked the court to adjourn the March 27, 2025 post-fact-discovery conference. The defendants also asked that the rescheduled conference serve as a pre-motion conference for an anticipated motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when the moving party contends that the undisputed facts require judgment in its favor. The plaintiff consented to the requested adjournment.
Claims and anticipated arguments
The defense letter described the complaint as asserting that the defendants denied the plaintiff access to withdrawal treatment, showing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The letter also described an Americans with Disabilities Act claim based on alleged discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.
The defendants stated that their anticipated summary-judgment motion would argue that the plaintiff received access to withdrawal services in March 2020 and entered an ongoing methadone-maintenance program in April 2020. They also argued that a temporary suspension of new admissions to the KEEP program during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic did not deny withdrawal services. On the disability claim, they argued that the plaintiff was not treated differently from inmates without disabilities and was not denied services available to non-disabled individuals.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the request to adjourn the post-discovery conference until April 24, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. The court stated that the adjournment was granted only to prevent the plaintiff from being unfairly prejudiced by defense counsel’s delay. The plaintiff must file any responsive pre-motion letter by April 8, 2025. The court warned that no further adjournments would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances and expected the parties to be fully prepared for the conference.
This order did not grant or deny the anticipated motion for summary judgment and did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s constitutional or disability claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.