Taylor v. New York State Dept. of Correction Employees

Background

Roy Taylor, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against Commissioner Molina, Dr. Goldberg, Captain Ferber, and Officers Carter, Whyte, and Fowling. The opinion says that his numerous claims generally allege that the defendants violated federal and state law by denying him medical treatment. The pending motions arose from Taylor’s request to reconsider the court’s December 13, 2023 order denying his request for a photo array of medical staff who worked at the Anna M. Kross Center during the period when he tested positive for coronavirus in December 2021.

Taylor also asked the court to issue a summary-judgment opinion on his property-loss claim. The court had previously denied summary judgment because material facts were disputed. Taylor requested a status conference and appointment of a pro bono attorney. The defendants sought a discovery schedule, an order requiring Taylor to respond to discovery, and permission to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants argued that a general release signed by Taylor in February 2022 barred the action; Taylor argued that a later release and settlement stipulation preserved it. The court did not decide whether the releases barred the lawsuit.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court held that Taylor’s motion was filed nearly a year after the challenged December 13, 2023 order, well beyond the 28-day deadline. It also held that Taylor identified no new facts or law warranting reconsideration and largely repeated arguments from his earlier request for a photo array. The motion for reconsideration was therefore denied in full.

The court denied Taylor’s request for summary judgment on the property-loss claim because the material-fact dispute identified in the earlier ruling still existed. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed; the court concluded that this standard was not met at that stage.

The court denied Taylor’s request for a pro bono attorney because the parties remained engaged in discovery and the court had previously determined that appointing counsel was inappropriate at that stage. It also denied Taylor’s request for a status conference.

The court stated that pretrial oversight was being referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger. It denied the defendants’ request for a discovery schedule without prejudice and granted them leave to re-file that request before the appropriate judge. It denied the defendants’ request for an order compelling Taylor to answer discovery because the request did not comply with the applicable local rule: the defendants had not quoted or attached the discovery requests and responses or explained why they were entitled to relief for each request. The court denied that request with leave to re-file under the appropriate procedures.

The court denied the defendants’ request for leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings because they had not first sought the required pre-motion conference. A motion for judgment on the pleadings asks the court to decide a case based on the pleadings, such as the complaint and answer.

Additional Directives

The court warned Taylor that malicious or disparaging statements about defense counsel, the defendants, or the court would not be tolerated and could be sanctionable. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report by July 18, 2025, providing updates on discovery and the status of any settlement discussions. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 76.