Carwell v. City Of New York

What the order concerns

This document is a procedural order responding to a letter from the defendants. The defendants, the City of New York and Detective Carlos Lozada, asked the court to stay, or pause, the limited discovery remaining in the case and to approve a briefing schedule for an anticipated motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request to resolve claims without a trial when the moving party says the available evidence does not create a genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Background described in the defendants’ letter

The letter states that Carwell did not appear for a noticed deposition on January 18, 2022, even though fact discovery was scheduled to close on January 20, 2022. According to the letter, one of Carwell’s attorneys later said that another attorney was unavailable because he was on trial and that Carwell was incarcerated in New Jersey. The letter also states that Carwell had not noticed any depositions or requested more time for fact discovery.

The letter describes Carwell’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law as involving unlawful search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive force, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, denial of a fair trial, equal protection, failure to intervene, conspiracy-related claims, and municipal liability.

The defendants’ letter recounts that Carwell was arrested on July 26, 2018, after a complaining victim identified him in a photo array as one of two people who allegedly robbed the victim at gunpoint. The letter cites Carwell’s earlier sworn testimony that police arrested him after he came to his apartment doorway and identified himself. It also states that Carwell testified that the handcuffs bothered his wrists for a few hours, that he suffered no other physical injury, and that he did not seek medical treatment.

Arguments made by the defendants

The defendants argued that the victim’s photo identification established probable cause for the arrest and prosecution, which they said defeated Carwell’s false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims. They alternatively argued that Detective Lozada was entitled to qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield an official from damages when the law did not clearly establish that the official’s conduct was unlawful.

The defendants further argued that Lozada was not personally present when Carwell was arrested, defeating claims requiring personal involvement in a constitutional violation. They argued that the arrest did not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures because, according to Carwell’s testimony as quoted in the letter, he was arrested in the doorway of his apartment. They also argued that the alleged short-term wrist discomfort from tight handcuffs was too minor to establish excessive force. The defendants stated that they were prepared to brief their additional arguments concerning the remaining claims and Carwell’s state-law claims.

These were arguments in the defendants’ request for permission to file a future summary-judgment motion, not rulings by the court on the merits of Carwell’s claims.

What Judge Caproni ordered

The court directed Carwell to file any response by January 26, 2022, concerning the defendants’ proposed stay of the remaining discovery and proposed briefing schedule. The order also stated that the January 28, 2022, pretrial conference would take place as scheduled.

The order did not grant or deny the anticipated summary-judgment motion. It also did not state that the court was granting or denying the requested discovery stay or briefing schedule at that point. The opinion therefore resolves only the immediate scheduling and case-management issue presented in the document, not the underlying claims.