Burton v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-06928
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Burton v. City of New York, Judge Cronan granted the City’s request for responses identifying the unnamed officers.
The order directly affects Leroy Burton and the City of New York. Burton must address the City’s identification interrogatories, and the City’s deadline to respond to the earlier identification order depends on Burton’s compliance.
What happened
In Burton v. City of New York, Leroy Burton alleged that three unnamed correction officers attacked him at the George R. Vierno Center and that he was not taken to a hospital for several days.
The City said Burton had not answered its identification questions, which sought information needed to determine the officers’ names. The City asked the court to require Burton to respond and to give the City 30 days after his response to answer the court’s earlier order about identifying the officers.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request. He ordered Burton to file a status letter by June 20, 2022, explaining whether he had answered the questions or, if not, showing a good reason. The City must respond to the earlier identification order within 30 days after Burton complies. The court warned that it may dismiss the case without prejudice if Burton does not comply with the order.
The detailed version
- Burton v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-06928
- John Cronan
- May 20, 2022
Background
Leroy Burton filed this action against the City of New York and three correction officers identified as John Doe officers. He alleged that, on or about December 15, 2019, the officers attacked him in the dry cells of the George R. Vierno Center intake receiving room. He also alleged that he was not taken to a hospital for several days despite complaining about his condition.
The court had previously directed the City to identify the full names of the John Doe officers under an order requiring assistance in identifying unnamed defendants. The City sent Burton identification interrogatories—written questions seeking information about the officers—but said Burton did not respond after several requests and extensions of time.
The City’s Request
The City asked the court to compel Burton to answer the identification interrogatories. It also asked for 30 days to respond to the earlier order identifying the John Doe officers, measured from the date Burton complied with the interrogatories.
Ruling
The court granted the request. By June 20, 2022, Burton had to file a status letter stating whether he had complied with the City’s identification interrogatories and explaining how he had complied. If he had not complied, he had to show good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for failing to do so.
The City must respond to the earlier identification order within 30 days after Burton complies. The court warned that, if Burton does not comply with the order and answer the interrogatories, it may dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to pursue the case and failure to follow a court order, without further notice. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Burton, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.