Barnett v. State of New York
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-01174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Barnett v. Thomas, Judge Halpern granted some discovery, allowed an amended complaint, and denied defendants’ requests to set a deadline and pause discovery.
LAFVORNE BARNETT and the defendants, including C.O. A. Thomas, C.O. K. Edwards, C.O. M. Banks, and the proposed additional defendant, Sergeant Theodore Brooks.
What happened
In Barnett v. C.O. A. Thomas, et al., LAFVORNE BARNETT, who is representing himself, asked for additional discovery and permission to add Sergeant Theodore Brooks as a defendant. Defendants opposed those requests and asked to set a deadline for a planned summary-judgment filing and to pause discovery.
The court granted the request for Unusual Incident and Use of Force Reports because defendants agreed to provide them. It denied the request for use-of-force camera footage because defendants said no such footage exists. It provisionally granted the request for medical records, subject to Barnett signing and returning the required release, and granted permission to add Sergeant Theodore Brooks.
Judge Halpern granted the motion to compel in part, granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and denied defendants’ requests to set the proposed deadline and stay discovery. Barnett was ordered to file the amended complaint by June 9, 2025.
The detailed version
- Barnett v. State of New York · No. 7:24-cv-01174
- Philip Halpern
- May 19, 2025
Background
LAFVORNE BARNETT, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against C.O. A. Thomas, C.O. K. Edwards, and C.O. M. Banks. Barnett had also named the Village of Ossining, but agreed to discontinue the action against that entity during an April 7, 2025 pretrial conference. The scheduling order required discovery to be completed by September 23, 2025.
Barnett filed a letter asking for additional discovery and permission to add Sergeant Theodore Brooks as a defendant. Defendants responded and also asked the court to set June 20, 2025 as their deadline to file a pre-motion conference letter concerning an anticipated summary-judgment motion. They separately asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court resolved their anticipated motion concerning whether Barnett had exhausted required administrative remedies.
The court treated Barnett’s letter as a motion to compel discovery and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. It treated defendants’ letter as an opposition, as well as a motion to stay discovery.
Discovery Rulings
Barnett sought three categories of material:
1. Unusual Incident and Use of Force Reports: Defendants represented that they would mail Barnett an additional copy of the relevant reports. The court granted this request as unopposed and directed defendants to produce the reports as represented.
2. Camera footage: The court denied this request because defendants represented that no such footage exists.
3. Medical records: Defendants represented that they had not received the required health-information releases and would produce the records after receiving them. The court provisionally granted this request as unopposed. If Barnett signs and returns the required release, defendants must produce the medical records after receiving them.
Request to Amend
The court granted Barnett leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding Sergeant Theodore Brooks as a defendant. Defendants argued that adding Brooks would be futile because they intended to assert that Barnett failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court relied on the principle that amendments should generally be allowed and that a person representing himself should receive a reasonable opportunity to show that he has a valid claim. The court stated that defendants could raise the exhaustion defense after Barnett amended the complaint.
Defendants’ Requests
The court denied defendants’ request to set June 20, 2025 as the deadline for their pre-motion conference letter concerning an anticipated summary-judgment motion. It also denied their request to stay discovery, explaining that Barnett had been granted permission to amend and that defendants had not shown the required good cause for pausing discovery. The court noted that filing a summary-judgment motion before discovery ends does not automatically stay discovery.
Disposition
The court concluded that Barnett’s motion to compel was granted in part and that his motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint was granted. Defendants’ motion to set the proposed deadline and stay discovery was denied. Barnett was ordered to file the Second Amended Complaint by June 9, 2025. Within fourteen days after it was docketed, defendants were ordered to answer it or move to dismiss under the court’s individual rules.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.