Kirby v. Carter
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-09056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kirby v. Carter, Judge Parker granted defendants’ extension request but denied their requests to adjourn the conference and stay discovery.
The order directly affects the incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer and the defendants Carter, Guerra, and Horton. Defendants received more time to respond, while the initial conference remained scheduled and discovery was not stayed by this order.
What happened
In Kirby v. Carter, defendants asked for more time to respond to the complaint, postponement of the initial case-management conference, and a pause in discovery. The plaintiff, who is incarcerated and representing himself, alleges that jail conditions violated his constitutional rights.
The court granted the request for more time to respond. It denied the requests to postpone the initial conference and to stay discovery.
The initial conference will proceed as scheduled, and Judge Katharine H. Parker stated that the court would address the requested discovery stay at that conference. The court did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
The detailed version
- Kirby v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-09056
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
The plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, alleges that conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center violated his constitutional rights. The opinion states that the case arose after a larger putative class action was divided into separate cases for individual plaintiffs to plead their own circumstances. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and defendants stated that the plaintiff might file another amended complaint naming an identified previously unnamed jail captain.
Defendants’ requests
Defendants requested three forms of relief: (1) additional time to respond to the complaint so the plaintiff could amend it and defendants could respond to the operative pleading; (2) postponement of the initial case-management conference; and (3) a stay, or temporary pause, in discovery while the court considered defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.
Defendants argued that the anticipated motion to dismiss would assert failure to exhaust required administrative remedies and failure to plead an objectively serious deprivation or adequate allegations concerning the defendants’ conduct. The opinion describes these as defendants’ anticipated arguments; the court did not decide them in this order.
Ruling
The court granted request one and denied requests two and three. Thus, defendants received the requested extension of time to respond. The initial case-management conference will proceed as scheduled. The court stated that it would address the requested discovery stay at the conference.
This order resolved defendants’ scheduling and discovery application. It did not rule on the anticipated motion to dismiss, determine whether the plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies, or decide whether the alleged jail conditions violated the Constitution.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.