Reed v. Johnson
- Rochon
- 1:20-cv-07584
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Reed v. Johnson, Judge Rochon reassigned the case and ordered a status letter without deciding the claims.
The order affects Christopher Reed, who is proceeding without a lawyer, J. Johnson, and the parties’ counsel by keeping prior deadlines in place, postponing district-court appearances, and requiring a joint case-status letter.
What happened
Reed v. Johnson is a case brought by Christopher Reed against J. Johnson, identified as a superintendent. The opinion says Reed is representing himself, and the case was reassigned to District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.
Judge Rochon kept all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines in place. Proceedings before the magistrate judge were to continue as scheduled, but district-court appearances and conferences were postponed until further notice.
Within three weeks, the parties had to confer and prepare a joint case-status letter, which the defendants had to file and serve on Reed. The order also required the letter to address matters such as the case’s claims and defenses, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the estimated trial length. Judge Rochon did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Reed v. Johnson · No. 1:20-cv-07584
- Rochon
- Sept. 19, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order, not a decision on the merits. The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. The opinion identifies Christopher Reed as the plaintiff and J. Johnson, superintendent, as the defendant. Reed is proceeding without a lawyer.
Effect of Reassignment
Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any conference or oral argument before, or directed by, the magistrate judge was to proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district court were adjourned until the court provides further notice.
Required Joint Status Letter
Within three weeks after the order was filed, the parties were ordered to confer and prepare a joint letter updating the court on the case. The defendants were ordered to file the letter through the court’s electronic filing system and serve it on Reed. The letter could not exceed four pages.
The order required the letter, as relevant, to address the parties’ current contact information; the nature of the case and principal defenses; why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper; existing deadlines; previously scheduled conferences; outstanding motions; pending appeals; discovery completed and still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; the status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; possible use of settlement conferences, mediation, or a private mediator; the estimated trial length; and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to submit the letter or appear if they filed appropriate proof of termination before the deadline. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Reed the order and Judge Rochon’s rules for civil and civil cases involving parties without lawyers.
Disposition and Scope
The court did not grant or deny a merits motion, resolve any claim, or determine which party was right. The order addressed reassignment, scheduling, and case-management requirements only.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.