Linval v. John Does 1-10

Background

The Individual Defendants—Jamal Brown, Fredrick Porcaro, Nicholas Binetti, Nicholas Ricigliano, and Louis Correa—asked the court for three forms of scheduling and case-management relief: (1) an extension of their deadline to move for dismissal from February 22, 2024, to March 25, 2024; (2) an indefinite adjournment of the initial conference scheduled for March 4, 2024; and (3) a stay, or temporary pause, of discovery while the court considered their anticipated motion to dismiss.

The letter states that the action was brought by Jonathan Linval under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Linval’s amended complaint asserted one count against the Individual Defendants under Bivens “and/or” Section 1983. The defendants argued that because they were federal officers, the claim should be treated as a Bivens claim rather than a claim under Section 1983, which generally applies to state or local officials. They further argued that the amended complaint did not state a legally cognizable Bivens claim because the defendants were members of the United States Marshals Service at the time of the alleged events.

Arguments About Discovery

The defendants argued that discovery should not begin before Linval stated a legally sufficient claim. They also said they intended to assert qualified immunity, a defense that can protect government officials from liability and from the burdens of litigation when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law. Finally, they relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows a court to protect a party from undue burden or expense, arguing that the anticipated dismissal motion presented substantial grounds for ending the claims.

The letter states that Linval consented to the requested filing extension and took no position on the requested conference adjournment and discovery stay. The opinion does not contain a ruling on whether the Bivens claim is legally sufficient, whether qualified immunity applies, or whether the defendants are entitled to dismissal.

Ruling

The court states: “Defendants’ request is GRANTED.” It adjourned the March 4, 2024 conference indefinitely and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 16. Because the request sought an extension, an adjournment, and a discovery stay, the order’s general grant appears to address the full request, although the order expressly describes only the indefinite conference adjournment. The order is a procedural case-management ruling and does not decide the merits of Linval’s claims.