El v. Black
- Vargas
- 1:23-cv-10317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sage El v. Calvin Black, Judge Vargas denied reconsideration of the stay and confirmed that no emergency injunction had been entered.
Sage El’s civil case remains stayed while his criminal prosecution proceeds. The defendants are also affected because the civil litigation does not move forward during the stay, and no emergency injunction was entered.
What happened
In Sage El v. Calvin Black, the court had stayed the civil case while Sage El’s criminal prosecution was pending. Sage El asked the court to reconsider that stay, arguing that it violated due process.
The court said Sage El had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or an injustice that would justify reconsideration. It also rejected his argument that the stay violated the New York or federal Constitution, explaining that courts may pause civil cases during related criminal proceedings.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied reconsideration. She also confirmed that the court had never entered the proposed emergency injunction Sage El believed had been approved; the Clerk’s approval of the proposal’s form only allowed it to be filed for the court’s consideration.
The detailed version
- El v. Black · No. 1:23-cv-10317
- Vargas
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
On June 18, 2025, the court stayed the civil case while Sage El’s criminal prosecution was being completed. Sage El later submitted a letter that the court treated as a motion asking it to reconsider the stay. The letter cited alleged due process violations under the New York State Constitution and the federal Constitution.
Arguments and legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when there has been a change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice. It also stated that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues or present a case under new theories.
The court interpreted Sage El’s letter generously under Second Circuit precedent. Even under that more forgiving approach, it found that Sage El had not shown any qualifying basis for reconsidering the stay.
Court’s reasoning
The court rejected Sage El’s due process argument. It held that courts have authority to stay proceedings to manage their dockets and that courts routinely stay civil cases while related criminal prosecutions are pending. The court said Sage El had not shown how the stay violated due process. It explained that the stay could protect Sage El’s criminal prosecution from the effects of civil discovery, allow the criminal case to proceed first, and potentially avoid litigating issues that the criminal case might resolve.
The court also addressed Sage El’s belief that it had entered an emergency injunction on July 11, 2025. The court stated that no such order had been entered. According to the court, the Clerk’s approval of Sage El’s proposed order as to form only allowed the proposal to be filed for the court’s consideration. Because a judge had not signed or entered it, the proposed order had no legal effect. The court confirmed that it denied Sage El’s request to enter that proposed order.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for reconsideration and confirmed that the proposed emergency injunction was not entered. The civil case therefore remained stayed under the earlier stay order. This order did not decide the underlying civil claims.
Terminology note
The order first describes the letter as Sage El’s motion, but its final sentence refers to “Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.” The opinion does not explain that discrepancy.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.