Boone v. Canale
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-02440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Henry L. Boone v. Joseph Canale, Judge Furman stayed defendants’ answer deadline while considering a requested stay of the civil case.
Henry L. Boone and the individually named defendants. Boone received an October 10, 2025 deadline to respond to the stay motion, and the defendants’ deadline to answer the complaint was stayed while the motion is pending.
What happened
Henry L. Boone, proceeding without a lawyer, brings a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law known as Section 1983, alleging excessive force connected to his March 17, 2023 arrest. The City’s lawyer asked the court to pause the civil case because Boone also faces a pending federal criminal prosecution arising from that arrest.
The filing argued that pausing the civil case could avoid overlapping proceedings, protect the criminal case, and reduce later discovery. It also asked the court to require Boone to provide updates about the criminal case every 60 days and to give the defendants 30 days to respond after any stay ends.
The court did not decide the requested stay in the provided text. Judge Furman ordered Boone to respond by October 10, 2025, prohibited a reply without permission, and stayed the defendants’ answer deadline while the court considers the motion.
The detailed version
- Boone v. Canale · No. 1:25-cv-02440
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 22, 2025
Background
Henry L. Boone, who is representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The filing states that he alleges, among other things, excessive force arising from his arrest on or about March 17, 2023, in the Bronx. The named defendants include Joseph Canale and other individual defendants.
The City of New York’s Law Department requested a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of the civil case. The request states that Boone has a pending federal criminal prosecution arising from the same arrest, involving a charge of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. According to the request, trial in that criminal case was scheduled to begin on October 14, 2025, and the United States Attorney’s Office supported the requested stay.
Arguments for a Stay
The City argued that the civil and criminal matters substantially overlap because they arise from the same arrest. It asserted that proceeding with civil discovery could affect the criminal case by exposing defense positions, expanding discovery beyond criminal-procedure limits, or creating self-incrimination concerns. It also argued that a stay could avoid duplicated work because transcripts from the criminal trial might help streamline later civil discovery.
The City further argued that any delay to Boone’s civil case would cause limited prejudice compared with the burdens of proceeding simultaneously. It asked the court to stay the civil case until the criminal matter is resolved, require Boone to provide status updates every 60 days, and give the individual defendants 30 days after the stay ends to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Action Taken by the Court
The provided text does not show a ruling granting or denying the requested stay of the civil case. Instead, it states that Boone must respond to the City’s motion by October 10, 2025, and that no reply may be filed without the court’s permission. The court also ordered that the defendants’ answer deadline is stayed while the motion is pending. The Clerk was directed to mail Boone a copy of the order.
Judge Jesse M. Furman therefore set a response deadline and temporarily paused the defendants’ deadline to answer; the text provided does not resolve the underlying motion for a stay.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.