Goring v. Carter
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-08989
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Goring v. Carter, Judge Abrams granted two defense requests and denied two others, leaving the conference scheduled and discovery unresolved.
The defendants received the requested extensions of time, while the initial case-management conference remained scheduled and discovery was not stayed at this stage. The plaintiff's claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Goring v. Carter, an incarcerated plaintiff alleged that conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center violated his constitutional rights. The defendants sought more time to respond and to address an amended complaint identifying a previously unnamed captain.
The defendants also asked to postpone the initial case-management conference and pause discovery while they pursued an expected motion to dismiss. Their stated dismissal arguments were that the plaintiff had not exhausted prison grievance procedures and that the alleged temporary deprivations were not sufficiently serious, but the court did not decide those arguments in this order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the first two requests and denied the requests to postpone the conference and stay discovery. The conference therefore remained scheduled, and the court said it would address a discovery stay at that conference.
The detailed version
- Goring v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-08989
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
Lasalle Goring, who was incarcerated and represented himself, alleged that conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center violated his constitutional rights. The opinion says Goring was one of several individual plaintiffs in an earlier proposed class action concerning alleged temporary denials of toilet paper, soap, toothbrushes, food, and water. That earlier action was severed into separate cases requiring each plaintiff to plead his own circumstances.
The court had directed the New York City Law Department to identify a previously unnamed captain who allegedly supervised the intake area. The defendants' lawyer stated that, because of an oversight, the response to that directive had not been mailed to Goring and would be sent on March 7, 2022.
Defendants' requests
The defendants requested four forms of relief: a four-week retroactive extension to respond to the court's identification order; more time to respond to the complaint so Goring could amend it before the defendants filed an expected motion to dismiss; postponement of the initial case-management conference; and a stay, or pause, of discovery until the expected motion to dismiss was decided.
The defendants described two anticipated grounds for dismissal. They argued that Goring could not have completed the prison grievance process before joining the earlier action and therefore had not satisfied the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement. They also argued that the alleged temporary deprivations were not objectively serious enough to support a conditions-of-confinement claim and that Goring had not adequately alleged reckless conduct by any individual defendant. These were the defendants' proposed arguments, not rulings by the court in this order.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted requests one and two and denied requests three and four. The initial case-management conference therefore proceeded as scheduled. The court did not stay discovery at this stage; instead, it stated that it would address the requested discovery stay at the conference.
Classification and scope
This is a procedural order concerning scheduling and discovery. It did not decide whether Goring's constitutional claims were legally sufficient, whether he exhausted administrative remedies, or whether the defendants were entitled to dismissal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.