Drayton v. Young
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:17-cv-05440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Drayton v. Young, Judge Karas adjourned the status conference to April 8 but did not postpone the June 10 trial.
Frank Drayton, the defendants, and their lawyers were affected by the rescheduled status conference; the June 10, 2021 trial date remained unchanged.
What happened
In Drayton v. Young, Frank Drayton’s newly retained pro bono lawyers asked the court to postpone the trial and status conference. They said the civil-rights case involved claims that defendants used excessive force during his arrest and that a revived criminal proceeding created concerns about his constitutional right not to provide potentially self-incriminating testimony.
The lawyers also said they needed time to review the record and possibly seek additional discovery because Drayton had represented himself during earlier discovery and had not questioned the defendants or witnesses. The defendants agreed to postponing the trial and rescheduling the status conference.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas adjourned the March 23, 2021 status conference and rescheduled it for April 8, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. He did not adjourn the June 10, 2021 trial date.
The detailed version
- Drayton v. Young · No. 7:17-cv-05440
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
Frank Drayton’s complaint, filed while he was representing himself, asserts civil-rights claims under Section 1983 based on alleged excessive force during his January 6, 2016 arrest. The letter to the court states that the arrest also led to criminal charges and that a state court hearing on Drayton’s motion to vacate his criminal convictions was scheduled for March 16, 2021.
Drayton’s newly retained pro bono counsel asked the court to stay and adjourn the June 10, 2021 trial until the criminal proceeding was resolved. Counsel argued that Drayton could not effectively present his civil case without testifying and would therefore face a choice between pursuing the civil claims and exercising his constitutional protection against being compelled to incriminate himself. Counsel also requested that the March 23 status conference be rescheduled because one defense lawyer was unavailable.
Counsel further stated that discovery had been limited while Drayton represented himself. The parties had exchanged interrogatories and some documents, and defendants had deposed Drayton, but Drayton had not deposed defendants or witnesses. Counsel said additional time was needed to review the record and determine whether to seek permission to reopen discovery.
Court’s Action
Judge Kenneth M. Karas adjourned the March 23, 2021 status conference and instead scheduled it for April 8, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. The court stated that it would not adjourn the June 10, 2021 trial date at that time.
The text provided does not show a separate written explanation by the court addressing the constitutional or discovery arguments. It records the court’s scheduling endorsement and does not state that the trial-adjournment request was formally denied using that word.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.