Cook v. Sutherland

Background

The court reviewed the defendants’ request for permission to file a motion to dismiss and Cook’s responses. The order states that Cook was incarcerated and was representing himself. The defendants sought permission to file a motion to dismiss, and the court waived the usual pre-motion conference requirement.

Cook had also filed two motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to rule based on the current record without a trial. The attached materials include allegations concerning an officer’s conduct during a pat-down search and arguments about constitutional claims, but the January 14 order did not decide those underlying claims.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants leave to file their motion to dismiss and established a briefing schedule: the defendants’ moving papers were due to be served on February 13, 2020; Cook’s opposition was due to be served on March 16, 2020; and the defendants’ reply was due to be served on March 20, 2020. The defendants’ counsel was directed to file all motion documents, including Cook’s opposition, on March 20, 2020.

The court denied Cook’s two summary-judgment motions without prejudice to renewal at a later stage after sufficient discovery had occurred. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 15, 20, and 21 and to mail Cook a copy of the order. Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide the merits of the constitutional allegations in this order.