Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-06446
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Preacely v. HUD, Magistrate Judge Parker denied Preacely’s request to restore a case-management conference before the motion to dismiss was decided.
Woodrow Preacely’s request to restore the initial case-management conference was denied; the defendant’s motion to dismiss remained pending, and discovery was deferred until that motion was decided.
What happened
In Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Investigations, the defendant asked to postpone an initial case-management conference until after its motion to dismiss was decided. The court had already canceled the conference, and Woodrow Preacely asked to restore it.
Preacely argued that he was entitled to discovery and immediate relief, and he submitted a proposed case-management plan. He also asked the court to accommodate his physical disability at the conference. The court denied his request to restore the conference because discovery generally would not be considered before deciding a motion claiming that the complaint failed to state a legal claim.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker said the conference could be rescheduled if the motion to dismiss were denied. She also instructed Preacely to file any future correspondence through the court’s electronic filing system and, if the conference were rescheduled, to request disability accommodations at least a week beforehand.
The detailed version
- Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · No. 1:22-cv-06446
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
The defendant filed a letter motion requesting, among other things, that the initial case-management conference scheduled for November 3, 2022, be postponed while the defendant’s motion to dismiss was pending. The defendant reported that Woodrow Preacely opposed the postponement because he believed he was entitled to discovery and immediate relief.
The court granted the postponement request on October 20, 2022, and canceled the conference without setting a new date. Preacely later asked the court to deny the postponement, filed a proposed case-management plan, and asked that the conference be restored. He also emailed the court requesting an accommodation for his physical disability.
Ruling
The court denied Preacely’s request to reinstate the initial case-management conference. It explained that, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally considers only the pleadings—the formal written allegations and responses in the case—not outside evidence. Based on that rule, the court rejected Preacely’s argument that he was entitled to discovery before the motion to dismiss was decided.
The court stated that it would reschedule the conference if the motion to dismiss were denied. If the conference were rescheduled, Preacely was directed to file an electronic request at least one week beforehand identifying the disability accommodations he required. The court also instructed him not to email the court in the future and said he could ask to file sensitive or confidential information under seal. Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the clerk to mail Preacely a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.