Torres v. City of New York

Background

Torres filed multiple motions while this lawsuit was pending. His filings alleged, among other things, that he had been wrongly designated a terrorist, that the government had conducted a warrantless raid on his apartment, that he had been hospitalized involuntarily based on a fabricated diagnosis, and that defense lawyers and the Clerk of Court had fabricated or replaced a court order. The opinion describes these as Torres’s allegations; it does not resolve the underlying allegations in this order.

Torres asked the court to impose sanctions, disbar or disqualify defense lawyers, appoint pro bono counsel and a special master, prevent further stays, permit amendment of his complaint, restore claims against the hospital defendants, send the case to trial, and grant other relief. Defendants opposed the motions and denied fabricating any court order. They also argued that at least one sanctions motion was frivolous and asked the court to warn Torres about possible sanctions for unsupported future motions.

Rulings on the motions

The court explained that it had not granted the stay Torres identified as occurring on March 15, 2021. Instead, the court later stayed the proceedings only as to Police Officer Daniel Pearles and denied the stay as to the other defendants. The court also explained that the January 31, 2023 filing sought an extension of Pearles’s time to respond to the complaint, which the court granted on February 2, 2023. Because the relevant requests to prevent another stay had already been addressed, the court denied Torres’s request to prevent a further stay as moot. “Moot” means that the requested relief no longer presents a live issue.

The court denied Torres’s motion seeking sanctions and other relief, finding no basis to sanction the defendants or their attorneys. It also declined to appoint a special master or pro bono counsel and stated that the case could not proceed to trial until discovery ended. The court denied Torres’s motion to clarify or reconsider the October 27, 2021 order because the motion did not provide a basis for reconsideration. Reconsideration is a request for the court to revisit an earlier ruling, which the court described as an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances.

The court found that the six-page order docketed as Document 144 was a true and correct copy, not a fabricated document. It denied the motion seeking a stay until alleged crimes by the Clerk and defense lawyers were resolved because the request had become moot and there was no other basis for a stay. It also found no basis to reconsider the January 17, 2023 order granting the hospital defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the remainder of Torres’s requested relief and would deny those requests in any event.

The court denied Torres’s motion to amend his complaint because it was based on his allegation that a January 31, 2023 order had been fabricated, while the court stated that no order was filed on that date and that Document 144 was not fabricated. It denied the motion for court information because the requested relief was unclear and the pending motions had been resolved. It denied the motion seeking an explanation for allegedly canceled telephone conferences because the court had already addressed the issue in an earlier order. Finally, it denied the two identical motions to disqualify the City of New York Law Department from representing the defendants because the alleged fabrication of Document 144 had not occurred.

Disposition

The court stated that Torres’s motions were DENIED. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Documents 203, 213, 220, 221, 233, 239, 240, 243, and 244. The court cautioned that threats against opposing counsel are serious offenses that may result in sanctions or other adverse action, including dismissal of the lawsuit.