Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-08806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility, Judge Roman denied without prejudice objections to discovery and caption rulings.
Shirley Dimps’s requests to pause discovery and amend the case caption were denied; the magistrate judge’s rulings remained in effect.
What happened
In Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility, Shirley Dimps, who represented herself, objected to a magistrate judge’s decisions denying her request to pause discovery while seeking a volunteer lawyer and her request to change the case caption.
The court found no clear mistake in either decision. It said Dimps had not shown that pausing discovery was necessary and noted that she had litigated the case herself for more than seven years. It also found no basis to restore her former union title to the caption because claims based on that role had already been dismissed and affirmed on appeal.
Judge Roman denied without prejudice Dimps’s objections and affirmed both magistrate judge decisions. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the objection motion and mail Dimps a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility · No. 7:17-cv-08806
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 7, 2025
Background
Shirley Dimps, proceeding without a lawyer, objected to Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause’s rulings denying two requests: (1) to pause discovery while she sought volunteer legal counsel, and (2) to amend the case caption to restore her title as “Local President of 176 at Taconic C.F.”
A district judge reviewing a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, including a discovery dispute, may set it aside only if it is clearly mistaken or contrary to law. The district court described this as a highly deferential standard.
Request to Pause Discovery
The court upheld Judge Krause’s denial of Dimps’s request to stay, or pause, discovery. The court said the party seeking a stay must show that one is needed, and found that Dimps had not met that burden. It rejected her conclusory assertion that the case was complex and noted that she had litigated the case proficiently without a lawyer for more than seven years, including through multiple rounds of motions.
The court stated that Dimps might be entitled to volunteer counsel at a later stage, such as summary judgment, but found no error in denying a discovery stay at that point in the case.
Request to Amend the Case Caption
The court also upheld Judge Krause’s denial of Dimps’s request to restore her union-related title to the caption. The court explained that Dimps’s claims based on her prior role as a union official had been dismissed by the district court on March 25, 2019, and that dismissal had been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 4, 2020. The court found no basis to restore the title and noted that Dimps had identified neither supporting case law nor a mistake in the record.
Ruling
The court denied without prejudice Dimps’s objections to Judge Krause’s rulings and affirmed both rulings. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the objection motion, mail Dimps a copy of the order, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.