Hollenquest v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-08801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hollenquest v. City of New York, Judge Ramos granted a stay while a police-conduct investigation continued.
The stay affects the plaintiffs, the City of New York, P.O. John Nugent, the unidentified officers, and the deadlines and proceedings in the case while the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigation continues.
What happened
In Hollenquest v. City of New York, the City asked to pause the case while the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigated the incident underlying the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs consented to the request.
The City said the investigation could affect whether it would represent Officer John Nugent and could limit access to relevant information and documents. It also argued that a temporary pause would not harm the plaintiffs.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application, directed the Clerk of Court to stay the case, and ordered the City to file a status report about the investigation by May 9, 2022.
The detailed version
- Hollenquest v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08801
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs sued the City of New York, P.O. John Nugent, and unidentified John/Jane Doe officers. They alleged that police officers violated their constitutional rights by unlawfully entering their dwelling, using excessive force through tight handcuffing, and unlawfully imprisoning them.
The City asked the court to stay the entire case until 30 days after the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigation ended. It also asked the court to postpone all deadlines and conferences. The City said the plaintiffs consented to the request.
Reasons for the Requested Stay
The City explained that the investigation could affect whether the City’s Law Department could represent Officer Nugent. Under New York law, the City must determine whether an employee acted within the scope of public employment and complied with agency rules before representing that employee. The City said it could not make that determination while the investigation remained open.
The City also said that the investigation could limit access to documents, recordings, and other information because of law-enforcement and deliberative-process protections. It argued that proceeding during the investigation would make it harder to respond to the complaint, participate in conferences, and prepare for discovery. The City further argued that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced because they consented to the stay and the incident occurred in April 2021.
Ruling
The application was granted. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to stay the case and ordered the City to submit a status report about the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigation by May 9, 2022. The order did not state that the case was dismissed or that any claim had been decided.
Practical Effect of the Order
The litigation was paused while the investigation continued. The opinion states that the City could provide periodic updates about the investigation, but the order specifically required a status report by May 9, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.