Wilson v. City Of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-00479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wilson v. City of New York, Judge Gardephe adjourned the initial conference while the parties proceeded under a mediation plan.
Rhashawn Wilson, the City of New York, and the named and unidentified police-officer defendants; the order changed the timing and procedure for the case but did not decide the claims.
What happened
Rhashawn Wilson v. City of New York concerns Wilson’s claims that the City, police officers, and other officers violated federal and New York civil-rights laws during his arrest and later prosecution. The claims include allegations of unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, excessive force, and a claim against the City based on its policies or practices.
The parties jointly asked to continue under the court’s special process for certain civil-rights cases involving the City and police officers. The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for May 6, 2021, without setting a new date. The endorsement also set a July 5 deadline for a joint status letter. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered the order on May 4, 2021. The case was to proceed through the special process, which includes limited early information exchange and mediation before formal discovery.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00479
- Paul Gardephe
- May 4, 2021
Background
Rhashawn Wilson sued the City of New York and police officers Nicholas McQuail, William Dunn, Karl Rugg, and unidentified officers. According to the parties’ letter, Wilson alleges that his federal and New York State civil rights were violated during his January 14, 2020 arrest and subsequent prosecution. The letter identifies 20 federal and state-law causes of action, principally involving alleged unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of the right to a fair trial, and excessive force. Wilson also asserts a claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services, concerning municipal responsibility for unconstitutional policies or practices.
The Parties’ Request
The parties jointly asked the court to continue handling the case under Local Civil Rule 83.10, referred to in the letter as the § 1983 Plan. They explained that this process applies to certain civil-rights cases brought by represented plaintiffs against the City, the New York City Police Department, or its employees. The parties stated that the process provides for limited early information exchange, a standard protective order for confidential documents, settlement discussions, and mediation before formal discovery.
Court’s Action
The court endorsed the request. It adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for May 6, 2021, without setting a new date. The endorsement also states that the parties would submit a joint letter by July 5, 2021, but the provided text does not clearly show the subject of that status update. The order did not resolve any of Wilson’s claims or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.