Francis v. City of New York
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-02530
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Francis v. City of New York, Judge Tarnofsky granted a discovery stay and set deadlines for additional briefing.
Hopeton K. Francis and the defendants in the case, including the City of New York.
What happened
Hopeton K. Francis did not oppose the defendants’ request to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending. The court granted that request.
The court allowed Francis to file an additional response by July 11, 2025, and allowed the defendants to file a response to that filing by July 25, 2025. Francis also asked the court to appoint a lawyer, but the court explained that the circumstances for seeking volunteer counsel were not present and encouraged him to contact the City Bar Justice Center for Civil Pro Se Litigants.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the motion to stay discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related filing, ECF 48.
The detailed version
- Francis v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-02530
- Tarnofsky
- June 12, 2025
Background
At a June 11, 2025 telephone conference, Plaintiff Hopeton K. Francis stated that he did not oppose Defendants’ letter-motion to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss the amended complaint was pending.
Rulings
The court granted Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF 48.
Because Francis said he had identified errors in the defendants’ filings supporting their motion to dismiss, the court gave him until July 11, 2025 to file a surreply, meaning an additional response. If he filed one, the defendants could file a sur-surreply, meaning a response to that additional response, by July 25, 2025.
Francis also requested appointment of counsel. The court explained that civil litigants do not have the guaranteed right to a lawyer that criminal defendants have, and that volunteer lawyers are available only in limited circumstances. The court stated that those circumstances were not present, including because Francis had not shown that he had sought help from both private lawyers and public-interest lawyers who declined to assist him. The court encouraged him to contact the City Bar Justice Center for Civil Pro Se Litigants. The opinion does not expressly state a separate formal disposition using the word “denied” for the counsel request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.