Acosta v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:26-cv-02488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Desmond Acosta v. City of New York, Judge Parker granted an adjournment and rescheduled the case-management conference.
Desmond Acosta, the defendants and their counsel, and the officials responsible for arranging Acosta’s telephone participation from Five Points Correctional Facility.
What happened
Desmond Acosta, representing himself, brings claims under a federal civil-rights law against the City of New York and other defendants based on events from about February 2023. The City asked to postpone the initial case-management conference while additional individuals were identified, Acosta amended his complaint, and those individuals were served.
The court granted the application. It rescheduled the telephone conference for September 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The order also directed the official in charge of Five Points Correctional Facility to make Acosta available by telephone and instructed counsel to coordinate his participation.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order on July 15, 2026. The ruling addressed scheduling and participation in the conference; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. City of New York · No. 1:26-cv-02488
- Gregory Woods
- July 15, 2026
Background
Desmond Acosta is proceeding without a lawyer and brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims, concerning an incident on or about February 2023. The claims include alleged failure to protect, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and due-process violations. The opinion text states that Acosta named New York City Health + Hospitals, the New York City Police Department, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and Dr. Acrish as defendants.
The court previously dismissed Acosta’s claims against the New York City Police Department and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, added the City of New York and Dr. Carol Moores as defendants, directed service on certain defendants, and ordered assistance in identifying people Acosta had described as John Doe defendants. The City later identified former Correction Officer Sonjoy Mojumder. The court also gave New York City Health + Hospitals more time to identify additional individuals and gave Acosta 30 days after receiving that information to file an amended complaint naming them.
The Request
The City asked to postpone the initial case-management conference, which had been scheduled for July 23, 2026, and to postpone the deadline for defendants to submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order. The City sought the postponement until additional individuals were identified, Acosta filed an amended complaint, and those individuals were served and appeared. The City stated that this was its first request of this kind. Counsel for New York City Health + Hospitals consented, while the opinion states that counsel for the New York State Attorney General had not responded before the request was filed.
The City also stated that its law department had not yet undertaken representation of individually named defendants and would need to determine whether it would represent Sonjoy Mojumder under New York law after he was served. The opinion does not state a new deadline for defendants’ proposed case-management plan.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It rescheduled the telephonic initial case-management conference for Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
The order directed the warden or other official in charge of Five Points Correctional Facility to produce Acosta at a suitable location with a telephone so he could participate. It instructed counsel to send the order to the facility, arrange the call, determine the telephone number where Acosta would be available, complete the proposed case-management plan form for a self-represented plaintiff, email it to the court’s chambers, and join the judge’s teleconference with Acosta on the line.
This was a scheduling order. It did not decide whether Acosta’s underlying civil-rights claims have merit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.