DeBlasio v. Williams
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-00201
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In DeBlasio v. Williams, Judge Failla granted a discovery stay and extended Philip DeBlasio’s deadline to respond to defendants’ request to revoke his fee waiver.
The order paused discovery for Philip E. DeBlasio and defendants Doctor Erin Williams and New York City Department of Correction Officer Tyrone Simon, and extended DeBlasio’s response deadline.
What happened
In DeBlasio v. Williams, Philip DeBlasio alleged that correction officers verbally harassed him and arranged for another inmate to attack him. Defendants were Doctor Erin Williams and New York City Department of Correction Officer Tyrone Simon.
Defendants asked the court to pause discovery while they sought to revoke DeBlasio’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees and to dismiss his complaint. They argued that he had accumulated three prior qualifying dismissals under the filing-fee statute and had not alleged immediate danger. The court had not yet decided that request.
Judge Failla granted the application and stayed discovery. She also extended DeBlasio’s deadline to respond to defendants’ request to revoke his fee-waiver status until June 29, 2020, noting that pandemic-related restrictions at correctional facilities may have delayed his mail. The court said it would consider defendants’ request if DeBlasio did not respond by that date.
The detailed version
- DeBlasio v. Williams · No. 1:19-cv-00201
- Katherine Failla
- May 18, 2020
Background
Philip E. DeBlasio alleged that on December 21, 2018, at the Anna M. Kross Center, Correction Officer Tyrone Simon and two unidentified correction officers verbally harassed him. He further alleged that one unidentified officer ordered another inmate to attack him, and that the inmate punched him in the back of the head and face.
DeBlasio filed the complaint on January 8, 2019. Defendants later sent a letter stating that they planned to ask the court to revoke DeBlasio’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees under the federal filing-fee statute and to dismiss the complaint. The court ordered DeBlasio to respond by March 31, 2020, but he had not responded by the time of this order.
Defendants’ request
Defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery—including their deadline to respond to DeBlasio’s interrogatories and document requests—until the court resolved their anticipated request to revoke his fee-waiver status and dismiss the complaint. They argued that the anticipated motion was fully dispositive, meaning it could resolve the case, and that conducting discovery during the motion would waste time and resources.
Ruling
The court granted the application and stayed discovery. The court also extended DeBlasio’s time to respond to defendants’ request to revoke his fee-waiver status based on three prior qualifying dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) until June 29, 2020. The court noted that restrictions at correctional facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic may have delayed DeBlasio’s receipt of mail and submission of documents. It stated that if DeBlasio did not respond by the new deadline, it would consider defendants’ request. The order did not decide whether to revoke his fee-waiver status or dismiss the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.