Swinson v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-01684
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Swinson v. City of New York, Judge Liman stayed the civil case until Randy Swinson’s related criminal case is finally resolved.
The stay affects Randy Swinson, the City of New York, and the police-officer defendants identified in the filing. It pauses the civil case, postpones its deadlines and conferences, and requires Swinson and the City to provide status updates about the related criminal case.
What happened
Randy Swinson sued the City of New York and police officers over his June 2, 2019 arrest, alleging excessive force, false arrest, and other injuries. The opinion says he was also facing a related criminal case involving an indictment for possessing stolen credit cards.
The City asked the court to pause the civil case while the criminal case continued, and Swinson agreed. The City argued that continuing discovery could affect Swinson’s right not to incriminate himself and could prejudice the criminal prosecution.
Judge Lewis J. Liman stayed the civil case until the criminal case is finally resolved. He also postponed all deadlines and conferences and ordered the parties to jointly report the criminal case’s status by July 1, 2020, and every eight weeks afterward.
The detailed version
- Swinson v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-01684
- Lewis Liman
- June 19, 2020
Background
Randy Swinson, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil action on February 26, 2020. The City’s letter describes his claims as arising from his June 2, 2019 arrest in Manhattan by members of the New York City Police Department. Swinson alleged that officers used excessive force, causing fractures to his wrist and fingers, tendon and ligament damage, and unspecified injuries to his knees, hips, and back. He also alleged that officers removed property from him without properly recording it and that he was denied medical treatment while in police custody at Bellevue Hospital.
The letter states that Swinson asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, false arrest, and municipal liability. It also states that criminal charges arising from the arrest were pending and that Swinson had been indicted for criminal possession of stolen credit cards.
The Requested Stay
The City asked the court to stay, or pause, the civil case until the related criminal case was resolved. The City argued that continuing the civil case could interfere with the criminal matter. In particular, it asserted that discovery might be limited because prosecution documents were unavailable, and that a deposition could force Swinson either to invoke his constitutional protection against self-incrimination or to provide answers that could harm his criminal defense.
The City also requested that Swinson provide periodic updates about the criminal case and that deadlines for responding to the complaint, submitting a case-management plan, and attending the initial pretrial conference be moved until after the stay ended. The letter states that Swinson consented to the stay request.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that the action be stayed pending the final resolution of Swinson’s criminal case. The court adjourned all deadlines and conferences indefinitely. It ordered Swinson and the City to jointly inform the court about the criminal case’s status by July 1, 2020, and every eight weeks thereafter until that case was resolved.
The order addressed case management while the related criminal prosecution was pending; it did not decide the merits of Swinson’s civil claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.