Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2020

Torres v. City of New York

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:19-cv-06332
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Torres v. City of New York, Judge Ramos ordered Torres to return a medical release so the City could identify unknown defendants.

Who this affects

Wilfredo Torres and the City of New York, concerning the identification of the unidentified defendants.

What happened

In Torres v. City of New York, Wilfredo Torres, representing himself, alleged constitutional violations against the City of New York, New York City Health and Hospitals, several named defendants, and unidentified police officers and a doctor.

The court directed Torres to sign and return a medical release to the City by June 29, 2020. If he failed to do so, the City would no longer have to identify the unidentified doctor. After receiving the release, the City was directed to identify that doctor and the other unidentified defendants by August 7, 2020.

Judge Edgardo Ramos issued this procedural order on June 24, 2020. The order addressed identifying the unidentified defendants and did not decide whether Torres’s constitutional claims were valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Torres v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06332
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
June 24, 2020

Background

Wilfredo Torres, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged constitutional violations against the City of New York; New York City Health and Hospitals; Neil Veras; Patricia De Jesus; three unidentified police officers; and an unidentified doctor. The court had previously directed the City, under a procedure requiring assistance in identifying unknown defendants, to identify the John Doe defendants.

The City received one 60-day extension and then requested a second 60-day extension. It also asked to be relieved of identifying the unidentified doctor because Torres had not returned the medical release needed to obtain medical records and identify that doctor. The court granted those requests on June 9, 2020. Torres then informed the court that he would immediately return the signed release.

Order

The court directed Torres to sign and return the required medical release to the City by June 29, 2020. The court stated that failure to do so would relieve the City of its obligation to identify the unidentified doctor. Once the City received the release, it was again directed to identify the doctor and the other unidentified defendants by August 7, 2020.

Effect of the Order

This order managed the process for identifying defendants. It did not decide the merits of Torres’s constitutional allegations or state whether any defendant was liable.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.