Urena v. City of New York
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-01189
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Urena v. City of New York, Judge Parker granted the City’s stay request in part and denied it in part, keeping the August 15 conference.
Amaury Urena and the City of New York and other defendants in the case. The case was stayed until August 15, 2022, but the scheduled case-management conference must proceed, and the City must prepare to discuss the investigation, the unnamed-officer identification order, and case management.
What happened
In Urena v. City of New York, the City asked the court to pause the case while the New York City Department of Correction investigated the incident underlying Amaury Urena’s claims. Urena is representing himself and alleges excessive force and denial of medical care while in Department of Correction custody.
The City said the investigation could affect representation of individual defendants, identification of an unnamed officer, access to records, and its ability to respond to the complaint and meet case deadlines. The City asked to pause the entire case and all deadlines and conferences until the investigation ended.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the request in part and denied it in part. The case was stayed until August 15, 2022, but the case-management conference scheduled for that date must proceed. The City must be prepared to discuss the investigation’s status, compliance with the order concerning the unnamed officer, and a plan for managing the case.
The detailed version
- Urena v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01189
- Katharine Parker
- July 6, 2022
Background
The City of New York asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the entire case and adjourn all deadlines and conferences until the New York City Department of Correction finished its investigation into the January 7, 2022 incident at issue. The City stated that this was its first request for a stay and that it could not determine Urena’s position because he was incarcerated.
Urena is proceeding without a lawyer. According to the City’s description of his complaint, he alleges that on January 7, January 8, and January 14, 2022, while in Department of Correction custody, he experienced excessive force, deliberate indifference, and failures to provide medical care. The City described Urena’s allegation that officers threatened him and other inmates with chemical spray, that he was eventually cornered and pepper-sprayed while his hands were raised, and that he waited about 30 minutes for medical attention before being strip-searched and taken to an X-ray machine. These allegations were not decided in this order.
Reasons for the Requested Stay
The City argued that the investigation could affect whether the City’s Law Department would represent individual defendants. It also said the investigation could help identify the unnamed officer whom Urena alleges pepper-sprayed him. The City further argued that law-enforcement and deliberative-process privileges limited its access to investigation materials, records, recordings, and other information while the investigation remained open, making it difficult to respond to the complaint, participate in conferences, and prepare discovery.
At the time of the request, the City had deadlines concerning an order to identify an unnamed officer, responses to interrogatories and document requests, and an initial case-management conference set for August 15, 2022. The City asked that all of these matters be postponed until the investigation concluded.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the City’s request in part and denied it in part. The case was stayed until August 15, 2022. The case-management conference scheduled for August 15 was not postponed and must proceed as scheduled. The City must be prepared at that conference to address the status of the Department of Correction investigation, compliance with the order concerning the unnamed officer, and a case-management plan. The defendants were directed to send Urena a copy of the court’s endorsement.
The order addressed case scheduling and management; it did not decide the merits of Urena’s excessive-force or medical-care allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.