Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 25, 2021

Baptiste v. Griffin

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:18-cv-07274-NSR-VR
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Pro SeDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Baptiste v. Nagy, Judge Roman denied counsel without prejudice, paused summary-judgment briefing, and allowed limited discovery-related proceedings.

Who this affects

Malcolm Baptiste’s request for volunteer counsel and access to limited further discovery were affected; the schedule for Michael T. Nagy’s summary-judgment motion was paused.

What happened

In Baptiste v. Nagy, Malcolm Baptiste, representing himself, sued Michael T. Nagy and others under a federal civil-rights law. The court had dismissed all claims except Baptiste’s excessive-force claim against Nagy, and discovery was reported complete.

Baptiste asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer, reconsider a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison, and extend the schedule for briefing on Nagy’s planned summary-judgment motion. Nagy opposed the request for reconsideration.

Judge Roman denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning Baptiste may renew it later. The judge stayed the briefing schedule, allowed Baptiste to ask Judge Davison to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of addressing the discovery reconsideration request if the objection period remained open, and directed the parties to report within seven days after that issue was resolved.

The detailed version

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

Case
Baptiste v. Griffin · No. 7:18-cv-07274-NSR-VR
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
May 25, 2021

Background

Malcolm Baptiste filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michael T. Nagy and others. On October 13, 2019, the court dismissed all claims except an excessive-force claim against Nagy. The case was later referred to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison for general pretrial matters, including discovery.

At a February 12, 2021 status conference, the parties stated that discovery was complete, and Baptiste identified no outstanding discovery issues. The court allowed Nagy to file a motion for summary judgment and set a briefing schedule. The court later extended that schedule.

Motions and requests

The court received Baptiste’s motion for appointment of volunteer counsel on April 28, 2021. Baptiste also sought reconsideration of an oral discovery ruling made by Judge Davison on October 14, 2020. On May 21, 2021, Baptiste filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) and requested more time for the summary-judgment briefing schedule. Rule 56(d) concerns requests for additional time or discovery when a party cannot yet properly respond to a summary-judgment motion.

Ruling

The court denied, without prejudice, Baptiste’s motion for appointment of volunteer counsel. The court explained that, at this stage, Baptiste had not shown that his position was likely to have substance. The ruling left open the possibility of renewing the request later.

The court stayed the briefing schedule for Nagy’s summary-judgment motion. It granted Baptiste permission to appear before Judge Davison for the limited purpose of reopening discovery to address Baptiste’s reconsideration motion, provided that Baptiste’s time to object to Judge Davison’s ruling had not expired.

After the discovery issue is resolved, the parties must notify the court within seven days, after which the court will issue a revised briefing schedule for Nagy’s summary-judgment motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 59 and 61, mail the order to Baptiste, and record service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.