Martinez v. United States Of America
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-07275
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martinez v. United States, Judge Caproni postponed the conference and federal response deadline until service on all federal defendants.
Richard Martinez, the United States, and the federal defendants named in the case; the order postpones the initial conference and the federal response deadline until all federal defendants are served.
What happened
Martinez v. United States of America concerns claims arising from Richard Martinez’s medical treatment at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and by other medical providers. The United States said Martinez had served some defendants but had not yet served all federal defendants.
The United States asked to postpone the initial conference, extend deadlines for the joint case-management materials, and delay its response to the complaint until 60 days after all federal defendants were properly served. Counsel for the parties who had appeared consented to the requests.
Judge Valerie Caproni adjourned the October 30 conference and the United States’ deadline to respond without setting a new date. She ordered Martinez to update the Court within three days after serving all named defendants, after which the Court will set new dates.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. United States Of America · No. 1:20-cv-07275
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 20, 2020
Background
Richard Martinez brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute allowing certain claims against the United States for torts by federal employees; Bivens, a legal framework for some claims against federal officials; and state law. The claims concern medical treatment at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and by other nongovernmental medical providers.
The United States reported that Martinez served the U.S. Attorney’s Office on September 21 and the Attorney General on October 6. It said the docket did not show that Martinez had begun serving the individual federal defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). Those defendants were identified as Robert Beaudouin, M.D.; Mandeep Singh, P.A.; Yoon Kang, P.A.; and the Warden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center. The complaint also named “John/Jane Does 1-10,” but the opinion states that it did not provide enough information to identify them.
Requests
The United States asked the Court to postpone the initial pretrial conference scheduled for October 30, extend the deadline for the parties’ joint letter and proposed case-management plan, and extend the United States’ deadline to respond to the complaint until 60 days after all federal defendants had been properly served. The government said a conference and discovery schedule would be premature before all federal defendants were served, obtained any needed Department of Justice representation, and had an opportunity to respond. It also stated that it anticipated moving to dismiss at least part of the complaint and that the individual federal defendants might seek dismissal of the claims against them.
The opinion states that this was the United States’ first request for an adjournment or extension. Counsel for Martinez and attorneys for several other defendants consented to the request.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the October 30 initial pretrial conference be adjourned without a new date and that the United States’ deadline to respond to the complaint be adjourned without a new date, pending service on all federal defendants. The Court instructed Martinez’s counsel to serve all defendants as quickly as possible and required Martinez to file a letter updating the Court within three days after all named defendants had been served. The Court stated that it would then set a new conference date and new response deadlines. The parties’ joint letter and proposed case-management plan will be due on the Thursday of the week before the rescheduled conference.
Disposition
The order resolves scheduling and service-related matters. It does not decide the merits of Martinez’s claims or any anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.