Mercado v. Correctional Officer Haidome

Background

The court received Mercado’s original submission at Dkt. No. 39 and supplemental submission at Dkt. No. 51. Mercado was proceeding without a lawyer. The defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 30, which asks the court to rule in a party’s favor without a trial when the required facts are not genuinely disputed.

Treatment of Mercado’s filings

Mercado labeled the original submission a “Notice of Motion.” The court had previously construed it as Mercado’s opposition to the defendant’s summary-judgment motion rather than as a cross-motion, because the submission did not comply with Local Rule 56.1.

In the supplemental submission, Mercado referred to a notice of motion for summary judgment and cited a Local Rule 56.1 statement, a declaration, exhibits, and a memorandum of law. The court found that Mercado had not submitted those materials. Because the supplemental submission appeared to respond to the defendant’s motion and did not comply with Local Rule 56.1, the court also construed it as supplemental opposition to the defendant’s motion.

The court stated that Mercado did not need to file a cross-motion. Because she was representing herself, the court said it would give her submissions “special solicitude” and view the factual record in the light most favorable to her as the party opposing summary judgment.

Order

Judge Analisa Torres’s docketed order extended the defendant’s deadline to file a reply supporting the summary-judgment motion from October 3, 2025, through October 10, 2025. The order did not grant or deny the summary-judgment motion and did not decide the underlying claims.

Judicial-name note

The opinion text identifies “SARAH L. CAVE” as the United States Magistrate Judge, while the signature block reads “GARAH L. CANE, United States Magistrate Judge.” The supplied case metadata identifies Analisa Torres as the judge. The responsible judicial official should be verified from the docket.