Feliciano v. City of New York
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-10033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Feliciano v. City of New York, Judge Kaplan continued the stay of a civil-rights case while a criminal investigation and settlement discussions continued.
The stay paused Nicholas Feliciano’s civil-rights case against the City of New York and the named individual defendants, delaying further proceedings and the defendants’ response to the complaint.
What happened
Feliciano v. City of New York concerns claims arising from Nicholas Feliciano’s attempted suicide on November 27, 2019, while he was in New York City Department of Correction custody. The plaintiff alleges that employees of several city agencies were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and safety.
The City and individual defendants asked the court to continue pausing the civil case because a criminal investigation or prosecution concerning the incident remained pending. The parties consented to the request and reported that they were also engaged in settlement discussions. The letter described this as the fourteenth stay request.
The court continued the stay for an additional period and allowed the parties to report on March 31, 2023, about how they wished to proceed. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order; the court did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Feliciano v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10033
- Lewis Kaplan
- Jan. 20, 2023
Background
The case concerns the attempted suicide of Nicholas Feliciano on November 27, 2019, while he was in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction. The plaintiff alleges that employees of the Department of Correction, the New York City Fire Department, and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation were deliberately indifferent to Feliciano’s medical needs and safety. The opinion text does not describe the specific claims or alleged conduct in greater detail.
Request for a Further Stay
Counsel for the City and defendant Mark Peralta submitted a status report and requested that the court continue the stay of the civil action. Defendants Tasha Lambre and Terry Henry joined the request. The plaintiff consented to the stay, although plaintiff’s counsel had previously stated that a stay was not legally required.
The defendants said that a criminal investigation concerning the incident remained ongoing and that settlement discussions were also continuing. They asked the court to extend the stay and postpone the deadline for defendants to respond to the complaint. The parties proposed reporting to the court on March 31, 2023, about how they wished to proceed or about any disagreement concerning the case.
Prior Stays and Ruling
The letter stated that this was the fourteenth request for a stay and that earlier requests had been granted with the parties’ consent. The court had previously stayed the matter through January 19, 2023. The signed order continued the stay for an additional period and directed the parties to report on March 31, 2023.
This order addressed case scheduling only. It did not decide whether the defendants were liable or whether the plaintiff’s civil-rights allegations were legally valid. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court paused the case while a criminal matter or investigation remained pending and did not reach the merits of the civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.