Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 5, 2021

Genao v. City of New York

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-08731
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscoverySection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Genao v. City of New York, Judge Ramos granted a stay and deadline extension but denied discovery about an investigation.

Who this affects

Gabino Genao, the City of New York, and the correction-officer defendants, including Jamell Moore and Justin Andrews.

What happened

Genao v. City of New York is a civil-rights case brought by Gabino Genao without a lawyer against the City of New York and correction officers. The court had ordered the City to identify two John Doe defendants.

The City identified those officers as Jamell Moore and Justin Andrews and asked to pause the case while the Department of Correction investigated the underlying incident. Genao sought more time to amend his complaint and asked for information about the investigation.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the stay through February 18, 2021, and extended Genao’s deadline to file a second amended complaint to March 18, 2021. The court denied his request for discovery about the investigation and directed him to serve discovery requests on the defendants under the federal discovery rules.

The detailed version

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

Case
Genao v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08731
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Feb. 5, 2021

Background

Gabino Genao brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City of New York and several correction officers violated his constitutional rights. The original complaint named two correction officers as John Does. Under an order issued pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, the court directed the City to identify those officers and directed Genao to name them in an amended complaint.

The City identified the John Does as correction officers Jamell Moore and Justin Andrews and provided their shield numbers. The City then requested a stay of the case until February 18, 2021, while the Department of Correction investigated the incident underlying the complaint. Genao requested additional time to amend his complaint, expressed uncertainty about whether the court had received an earlier amended complaint, and claimed that the City had not identified an additional John Doe. He also requested discovery about the outcome of the Department of Investigation investigation.

Rulings

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the City’s request to stay the case until February 18, 2021. The court also granted Genao’s request to extend the amendment deadline and set March 18, 2021, as the deadline for his second amended complaint.

The court instructed Genao to list Moore and Andrews in that complaint using their full names and shield numbers. It further advised that the original complaint named only two John Does and that the City had fully complied with the identification order.

The court denied Genao’s request for discovery about the investigation. It directed him to send discovery requests to the defendants under Rules 26(b)(1) and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order did not decide the merits of Genao’s constitutional claims.

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.