Massey v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-07622
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Massey v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger lifted the stay, denied counsel without prejudice, and set steps for the dismissal motion.
Tyrone H. Massey and the defendants, including the City of New York. Massey’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the defendants received deadlines concerning their motion to dismiss and were ordered to provide case papers, while discovery remained stayed.
What happened
In Massey v. City of New York, Tyrone H. Massey sued the City of New York and other defendants. The court had stayed the case while Massey faced a competency hearing in a separate criminal matter; an evaluation later found him competent, and his communications indicated he could pursue the lawsuit.
The court lifted the stay and denied Massey’s request for free volunteer counsel without prejudice, meaning he may renew the request if any claims survive a motion to dismiss. The defendants also had to tell the court whether they would withdraw, revise, or continue with their existing dismissal motion after Massey filed an amended complaint.
The court stayed discovery while the dismissal motion is resolved and ordered the defendants to send Massey the pleadings and court orders because he reported losing his legal papers in a fire. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued the order.
The detailed version
- Massey v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-07622
- Laura Swain
- June 11, 2021
Background
Tyrone H. Massey filed this action on September 15, 2020. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 26, 2021. The court stayed the case on April 20, 2021, after Massey indicated that he was scheduled for a competency hearing in a separate criminal matter. On April 29, 2021, Massey filed an amended complaint.
On May 18, 2021, the defendants told the court that an evaluation in Massey’s criminal proceeding found him competent. The court also said that Massey’s communications showed that he was rational, capable of prosecuting his claims, and understood the relevant legal concepts. Massey said he felt overwhelmed and requested appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning free volunteer legal representation.
Rulings and directives
The court ordered the following:
- The stay of the case was lifted. - Massey’s request for pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice. The court said he could renew the request if any of his claims survived a motion to dismiss. The court concluded that it could not then determine that his claims were likely to have enough legal substance to justify appointing counsel under the standard cited from Hodge v. Police Officers. - By June 25, 2021, the defendants had to tell the court whether they would withdraw their motion to dismiss because of the amended complaint, revise the motion, or stand on the existing motion. They also had to propose any related briefing schedule. - Discovery was stayed while the court determined what would happen with the motion to dismiss, if it was refiled or not withdrawn. - Because Massey confirmed that he lost his legal papers in a fire, the defendants had to send him all pleadings and court orders issued in the case to that date by June 25, 2021.
What the order did not decide
The order did not decide whether Massey’s underlying claims were legally valid. It addressed the case’s status, counsel, discovery, and handling of the motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.