Torres v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-06332
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Torres v. City of New York, Judge Ramos granted the City’s requests to compel a release and extend its response deadline.
Wilfredo Torres and the City of New York; the order also concerned the timing of the City’s response to Torres’s amended complaint.
What happened
In Torres v. City of New York, Wilfredo Torres, representing himself, alleges constitutional violations by the City, New York City Health and Hospitals, and individual defendants, including unidentified officers and a doctor.
The City asked for more time to respond to Torres’s amended complaint and asked the court to require Torres to sign and return a release for information about dismissed and sealed cases.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted both requests. Torres had to return the release by August 14, 2020, and the City had to respond to the amended complaint by October 13, 2020.
The detailed version
- Torres v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06332
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 5, 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 to identify the unidentified defendants and set deadlines for the City to comply with that order and respond to Torres’s amended complaint.
Requests
The City requested an extension of its deadline to respond to the amended complaint until 60 days after Torres returned an executed release under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50. The City also asked the court to require Torres to complete and return the release.
Ruling
The court granted both requests. It directed Torres to execute and return the release to the City by August 14, 2020. It directed the City to respond to the amended complaint by October 13, 2020. The Clerk was directed to terminate the City’s motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.