Brown v. New York City Police Department
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-03287
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Brown v. New York City Police Department: Judge Oetken approved defendants’ briefing schedule, paused discovery, and postponed existing deadlines.
The order affects Noel Brown and the moving defendants—the City of New York, Officer Kempinski, Officer Li, and Captain Firsov—by pausing discovery and changing case deadlines while defendants prepare their motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Brown v. New York City Police Department, defendants asked the court to set a schedule for their planned motion to dismiss Noel Brown’s second amended complaint and to pause the case while that motion was considered. Brown was representing himself and was incarcerated.
The defendants argued that Brown’s claims concerning his arrest, meals, strip search, drug test, food, and medication were legally insufficient. The court did not decide those arguments in this order.
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the request, adopted the proposed briefing schedule, stayed discovery until the court resolved the anticipated motion to dismiss, and postponed all existing deadlines and conference dates without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Brown v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:18-cv-03287
- James Oetken
- June 22, 2020
Background
The defendants asked the court to adopt a briefing schedule for their anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They also asked the court to stay, or pause, the case and postpone all pending deadlines until the court ruled on that motion.
The letter states that Noel Brown’s claims involved his arrest on September 6, 2015, and his later confinement. The court had previously dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety while allowing Brown to amend certain federal confinement claims and an equal-protection claim related to his arrest. Brown then filed a second amended complaint. The defendants argued that the new complaint still failed to state claims involving the arrest, equal protection, vegan meals, an alleged strip search, a drug test, and denial of food and medication.
What the Court Did
The court granted the request. It adopted the defendants’ proposed schedule: motion papers due July 17, 2020; Brown’s opposition due August 17, 2020; and any reply due September 7, 2020. The court also stayed discovery pending resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss and postponed all existing deadlines and conference dates without setting new dates. Counsel was directed to mail a copy of the order to Brown.
This order did not decide whether the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss should be granted or denied. It addressed scheduling and discovery while that motion was pending.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.