Sanchez v. Ramos
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-07064
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sanchez v. Ramos, Judge Woods granted a stay of the civil action through March 20, 2020, during a corrections investigation.
The stay temporarily pauses Sanchez's case and affects the City of New York and the individual defendants by delaying their responses while the Department of Correction investigation proceeds. The stay expires on March 20, 2020.
What happened
In Christopher Sanchez v. Dr. Raul Ramos, et al., Sanchez, who was representing himself and incarcerated, alleged that his constitutional rights were violated during transportation to a Manhattan court hearing on June 24, 2019.
The City of New York asked the court to pause the case while the New York City Department of Correction investigated the incident. The City said the investigation could reveal relevant documents and help address possible conflicts involving the individual defendants and the City's lawyers.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the motion to stay. The stay will expire on March 20, 2020, and the defendant must submit a status letter by March 6, 2020. The order does not separately state whether the requested 21-day extension to respond to the complaint was granted.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Ramos · No. 1:19-cv-07064
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
Christopher Sanchez filed this civil action on July 29, 2019, and filed an amended complaint on August 27, 2019. The City stated that, broadly and liberally construed, the amended complaint alleges that Sanchez's constitutional rights were violated while he was transported to a court hearing in Manhattan on June 24, 2019. The defendants named in the filing include Dr. Raul Ramos, the City of New York, Captain Shaw, and Deputy Warden Miller. The text identifies Sanchez as proceeding without a lawyer and as incarcerated.
Motion to Stay
The City asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the case while the New York City Department of Correction investigated the incident. The City argued that a stay was appropriate because the investigation could create or clarify conflicts between the City's Law Department and the Department of Correction employees involved in the alleged incident. It also stated that the Department of Correction could not produce relevant documents until the investigation ended.
The City argued that Sanchez would not be harmed by a stay because his claims would continue to be investigated and the documents would be relevant to the case. It also requested an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint until 21 days after the stay ended.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the defendant's motion to stay. The stay will expire on March 20,
- The defendant was directed to submit a status letter no later than March 6,
- The Clerk was directed to mail Sanchez a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail and to terminate the motion listed at docket entry
- The order does not separately state whether the requested 21-day extension of time was granted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.