Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-06609
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Bruno v. Superintendent, Judge Rochon reassigned the case, kept existing deadlines, adjourned district-judge appearances, and ordered a status letter.
Justin Bruno, the respondent identified as the Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, the defendants, and any counsel involved in the case. The order particularly affects Bruno because it directs that the order and Judge Rochon’s civil pro se rules be mailed to him and requires the defendants to serve him with the joint status letter.
What happened
Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility is a case that was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in the Southern District of New York. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide who is right.
The court kept all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines in place. It adjourned previously scheduled appearances before the district judge, while leaving conferences or arguments before a magistrate judge in place. The parties must confer and prepare a joint status letter, and the defendants must file and serve it within three weeks unless the case is terminated before then.
Judge Rochon also required the letter to address the case’s status, including deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length. The court’s order was administrative and procedural; it did not rule on the merits of Bruno’s case.
The detailed version
- Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility · No. 1:21-cv-06609
- Rochon
- Sept. 20, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion states that the case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. It does not describe the claims, defenses, or underlying events in the case, and it does not decide any substantive legal issue.
Effect of Reassignment
Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain effective despite the reassignment. Any conference or oral argument before, or directed by, a magistrate judge will proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district judge are adjourned pending further notice.
Required Joint Status Letter
The parties must confer and prepare a joint letter updating the court on the status of the case. The defendants must file the letter electronically through the court’s filing system and serve it on the pro se plaintiff within three weeks after the order’s filing. The letter may not exceed four pages.
To the extent relevant, the letter must separately address:
- The names and current contact information of counsel and the pro se plaintiff;
- The nature of the case and the principal defenses;
- Why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court;
- All existing deadlines and cutoff dates;
- Previously scheduled but incomplete conferences and the issues to be discussed;
- Outstanding motions, including their dates and requested relief;
- Pending appeals;
- Discovery completed so far, including depositions and any discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- The status of prior settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands;
- Whether the parties have discussed mediation or a settlement conference and whether any listed alternative dispute-resolution option would be appropriate;
- The estimated trial length; and
- Other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case has already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties do not have to submit the letter or appear, provided they file an appropriate stipulation, dismissal, or other proof of termination before the letter deadline.
Other Directions
The court stated that requests to extend unaffected deadlines or adjourn dates must follow Judge Rochon’s individual rules, including the rules for civil cases involving people without lawyers. The clerk was directed to mail the order and those rules to Justin Bruno, who is identified in the caption as the petitioner and is referred to in the order as proceeding without a lawyer.
Disposition and Significance
The court entered administrative case-management directives. It did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss the case, enter judgment, or resolve the parties’ underlying legal dispute. The attached individual-practice rules explain filing, service, discovery, motions, settlement, and trial procedures for cases before Judge Rochon.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.