Taylor v. NYC
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-05036
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Roy Taylor v. NYC, Judge Vyskocil declined recusal and set deadlines for a proposed dismissal motion.
Roy Taylor, Defendant, and Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil; the order sets the schedule for Defendant’s proposed motion to dismiss and keeps Judge Vyskocil on the case.
What happened
Roy Taylor opposed Defendant’s request to file a motion to dismiss his operative pleading and asked the judge to step aside. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the reasons for the proposed dismissal.
The court said there was no basis to question Judge Vyskocil’s impartiality and that it would continue handling the case fairly. It ordered Defendant to file the dismissal motion by March 14, 2024; Taylor’s response is due April 29, 2024; and any reply is due May 6, 2024.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also asked the Clerk to terminate docket entry 89 and mail Taylor the order. The court did not decide the proposed motion to dismiss or the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. NYC · No. 1:20-cv-05036
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 29, 2024
What led to the order
The court received Defendant’s letter requesting permission to file a motion to dismiss Taylor’s operative pleading. It also received Taylor’s letter opposing dismissal and a letter asking the Chief Judge to require Judge Vyskocil’s recusal, meaning that she step aside from the case.
Recusal request
The court stated that there was no basis for recusal because there was no reason to question Judge Vyskocil’s impartiality. It also stated that the court had no personal bias or personal or fiduciary interest in the outcome and would continue to preside over the case fairly and impartially.
Briefing schedule and other action
The court ordered Defendant to file its contemplated motion to dismiss by March 14, 2024. Taylor’s response is due April 29, 2024, and any reply is due May 6, 2024. The Clerk was respectfully requested to terminate docket entry 89 and mail Taylor the order.
This order did not decide whether the motion to dismiss should be granted or denied, and it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.