Dixon v. Blackensee
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-07359
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Male Dixon, aka James King v. Blackensee, Judge Roman received the government’s request to pause discovery during an appeal; the text contains no ruling.
The requested stay would affect incarcerated plaintiff Male Dixon, also known as James King, the government defendant identified as Warden Blanckensee, and the discovery schedule in the case.
What happened
In Male Dixon, aka James King v. Blackensee, the government asked the court to pause all discovery and pending deadlines while its appeal was resolved. The plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the request.
The filing described earlier rulings that dismissed some claims but allowed the plaintiff’s Fifth and First Amendment claims against Warden Blanckensee in her personal capacity to continue. It argued that discovery should pause because of qualified-immunity issues and that the appeal removed the district court’s authority over the remaining claim while the appeal was pending.
The text is a government submission, not a court ruling, and does not state that the requested stay was granted or denied. Judge Nelson S. Roman is identified in the filing.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Blackensee · No. 7:17-cv-07359
- Nelson Roman
- May 27, 2020
Nature of the Filing
This document is a letter submitted by the government, through an Assistant United States Attorney, rather than a judicial opinion or order. The government represents Barbara Von Blanckensee, identified in the letter as the warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York. The plaintiff is identified as incarcerated plaintiff Male Dixon, also known as James King.
Request
The government asks the court to stay, or pause, all discovery and related deadlines until its interlocutory appeal is resolved. The filing states that plaintiff’s counsel consented to the request.
Background Described in the Filing
The government’s letter says that, on June 11, 2019, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss in part but denied it as to the plaintiff’s Fifth and First Amendment claims against Warden Blanckensee in her personal capacity under a federal constitutional-claim doctrine established in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents. The letter also says that, on March 26, 2020, the court denied in part the warden’s motion for reconsideration. According to the filing, the government appealed both decisions on May 22, 2020.
Arguments for a Stay
The government argues that discovery should be paused because the appeal concerns qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from litigation when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful. The filing also argues that the appeal concerns the entirety of the plaintiff’s remaining claim and therefore temporarily removed the district court’s authority over issues involved in that claim until the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issues its mandate.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain a ruling on the request for a stay. It does not say that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the motion. It also does not itself decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.