Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2022

Williams, Jr. v. City of New York

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:22-cv-03819
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Williams Jr. v. City of New York, Judge Parker denied sealing and assistance requests, directed discovery to conference, and redirected medical and library requests.

Who this affects

Alexander Williams Jr., whose requests were addressed, and the defendants, whose discovery-related requests were to be discussed at the initial case management conference.

What happened

In Alexander Williams Jr. v. City of New York, et al., the court addressed several requests made in letters filed by Alexander Williams Jr. The requests concerned sealing the case number and personal information, obtaining discovery, appointing a lawyer and other professionals, and obtaining medical attention and access to a facility law library.

The court denied the request to seal the case number and personal information because Williams had not identified specific information in his complaint that warranted sealing. It said discovery would be discussed at the initial case management conference. The court denied appointment of counsel without prejudice, denied requests for an economist, private investigator, and psychiatrist, and directed Williams to seek medical and law-library assistance from the state court handling his underlying case or the applicable grievance committee.

Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the August 8, 2022 order. The request for appointed counsel may be renewed later, and the court said the timing of any renewed request would be discussed at the initial conference.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams, Jr. v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-03819
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Aug. 8, 2022

Requests to seal information

The court denied Alexander Williams Jr.'s request to seal the case number and personal information. The court explained that Williams had not identified any specific personal information in his complaint that justified sealing.

Discovery

To the extent Williams sought discovery from the defendants, the court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the discovery requests at the initial case management conference scheduled for September 13, 2022. The order did not otherwise decide the discovery requests.

Appointment of counsel and other assistance

The court denied Williams's request for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It explained that, unlike a person facing criminal charges, an indigent person in a civil case is not automatically entitled to a court-appointed lawyer. The court stated that Williams could renew the request later if necessary and that the timing of a renewed request would be discussed at the initial conference.

The court also denied Williams's requests for an economist, private investigator, and psychiatrist. It stated that it lacked the resources or authority to make those appointments.

Medical attention and law-library access

To the extent Williams sought a court order requiring medical attention or access to the facility law library, the court directed him to make those requests to the state court where his underlying case was pending and/or the applicable grievance committee at his detention facility.

The Clerk of Court was requested to mail Williams a copy of the order. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order on August 8, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.