Santiago v. The City of New York et al
| Marcos Santiago |
| The City of New York, The New York City Police Department, The New York City Department of Corrections, Odell and John Doe's #1 through 10 |
| 1:2009cv00856 |
| February 27, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Kings |
| Brian M. Cogan |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Accordingly, Deft's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Counsels filing of an answer on behalf of both defts with no jurisdictional defenses-an answer that has still not been amended-would constitute caus e for an extension of time to serve. Accordingly, defts motion to dismiss under Rule 4(m) is denied. However, pltff's motion for an extension of time to effect service is at least premature, as the docket still reflects an answer on behalf of Of ficer O'Hea that does not assert any service defect. It is not sufficient for defendants to assert in a motion to dismiss under Rule 4(m) that this answer was a mistake. It is still there on the docket. If they wish to file an amended answer tha t removes Officer O'Hea or adds jurisdictional defense for him, they may move for that relief. However, since the likely result of granting such a motion, if grounds are found upon which to grant it, would be to extend pltff's time to effec t service as a result of this ruling, the Court suggests that the parties resolve these pleading and service issues by stipulation, if further action is necessary in light of this ruling. The Monell claim is therefore dismissed. Pltff may file an ame nded complaint containing such a claim w/in 10 days if he believes he can do so consistent with Rule 11; otherwise, the Court will consider a motion to amend, if plaintiff is so advised, after Officer O'Hea's deposition in which his prior relevant conduct will likely be addressed. So Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 8/18/2009. (Layne, Monique)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
