Minus v. New York City Police Department et al
| Omar Minus |
| Jane Doe, John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and CITY OF NEW YORK |
| 1:2017cv04623 |
| June 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
171
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 170 Order of Dismissal in favor of Brian Benvenuto, Joseph Tennaviello against Omar Minus. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated February 10, 2022, Pl aintiff failed to appear at trial this morning at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff had been repeatedly warned, including in person at the final pretrial conference on February 8, 2022, that "if he fails to appear for trial, his remaining claim will be dis missed for failure to prosecute and/or as abandoned." Accordingly, and for the reasons stated on the record, the case is dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Lewis v. Ra wson, 564 F.3d 569, 580 (2d Cir. 2009) ("It is beyond dispute under our precedent that a district court may dismiss a case under Rule 41(b) when the plaintiff refuses to go forward with a properly scheduled trial." Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 2/10/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
160
ORDER, The trial which will begin on Thursday, February 10, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 26B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY will be conducted as a bench trial. Plaintiff is reminded that if he fails to appear for trial at that time, his remaining claim will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or as abandoned. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Further, defense counsel is ORDERED to imme diately email it to Plaintiff and file proof of such service on ECF. SO ORDERED. ( Bench Trial set for 2/10/2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 26B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/8/22) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
153
ORDER: Trial in this case will be held, beginning February 10, 2022, in Courtroom 26B of the Daniel Moynihan Courthouse ("DPM"), 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. (Note that that is not the undersigned's usual courthouse or courtr oom.) The final pretrial conference, scheduled for February 7, 2022, at 10 a.m., will be held in Courtroom 26B of DPM as well. The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to Defendants' motions in limine, which was due on Janua ry 31, 2022. See ECF No. 142. Accordingly, Defendants' motions are deemed unopposed. Plaintiff is warned that failure to appear at the final pretrial conference may result in dismissal of his case as abandoned and/or for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. If Defendants have an email address for Plaintiff, they should immediately email a copy of this Order to him and file proof of such service on ECF. SO ORDERED., ( Ready for Tr ial by 2/10/2022., Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/7/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/03/2022) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order and the Court's January 18, 2022 Order, ECF No. 146, to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/19/2022) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
138
ORDER: As the parties know, jury trials in this District are currently limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, thus, available courtrooms are allotted subject to a priority system. In accordance with that system, trial in this case is now sche duled to begin the week of February 7, 2022. That said, there are several cases ahead of this one in the trial queue for that week. If those trials proceed, this case will not be tried that week and the Court will have to set a new date. In the e vent that the trials slated for the week of February 7, 2022, go away, however, trial in this case will begin that week (on a particular day to be determined). Accordingly, unless and until the Court says otherwise, the parties must be prepared to begin trial on any day during the week of February 7, 2022. The Court will advise the parties in the event there is a material change in circumstances. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Ready for Trial by 2/7/2022. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/2/2021) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Modified on 12/2/2021 (va).
|
|
Filing
136
ORDER. The Clerk of Court is directed to update pro se Plaintiff's address on the docket to reflect the return address listed in his Pretrial Statement filed at ECF No. 127: Omar Minus,3271 Lucerne Street,Bronx, New York 10465. Moving forward, Plaintiff is reminded that he is responsible for notifying the Court if his mailing address changes by contacting the Court's Pro Se Intake Unit, 40 Centre Street, Room 105, New York, New York 10007. Alternatively, if Plaintiff would like to receive communications in this case electronically, he is encouraged to fill out the attached consent form and to return it to the Pro Se Intake Unit. Finally, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order and of the Court's Order of September 2, 2021, ECF No. 135, to Plaintiff at the above-listed address. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/30/21) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this District is able to hold only a few jury trials at any given time; thus, trial dates are being assigned through to a centralized system (which gives priority to criminal cases over civil cases such as th is one). In light of that, the earliest date this case could be tried is in the first quarter of 2022. Separate and apart from that, the undersigned is presiding over several felony criminal trials scheduled for the first quarter of 2022, which wo uld take precedence over trial in this case further limiting available trial dates that quarter. Assuming that the centralized system remains in place for 2022, trial dates are likely to be assigned in mid- to late November. Accordingly, the parti es are hereby ORDERED to file separate letters no later than November 1, 2021, indicating any dates during the first quarter of 2022 (that is, between January 1, 2022, and March 31, 2022), when they or their witnesses will be unavailable for trial . The Court will then request a trial date and issue an order thereafter informing the parties whether a trial date in the first quarter of 2022 has been assigned and, if so, the date of trial. Once a trial date is set, it will be a firm date. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/2/2021) (vfr) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER granting 112 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 112. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/22/2021) (ks)
|
|
Filing
111
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 88 MOTION for Summary Judgment On Issue of Qualified Immunity. filed by Joseph Tennaviello, Brian Benvenuto. Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to the strip search claim is DENIED. The Court remains of the view that this case should settle given, among other things, that any damages would likely be small and that, due to the COVID-19 situation, it may be many months before trial can be held. But given that the parti es tried and failed to settle the matter after the Court's ruling on Defendants' first motion for summary judgment, the parties shall, in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, file their proposed J oint Pretrial Order and other pretrial submissions within two months of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. After the parties file their pretrial materials, the Court will issue an order addressing the timing of any trial. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/23/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
102
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court concludes that it is in the interests of justice to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Minus to take depositions of Defendants. The depositions are limited to three hours each and shall be completed by November 20, 2020. Unless the parties agree or the Court (upon proper letter motion) orders otherwise, the depositions shall be conducted remotely by videoconference in light of the COVID-19 situation. No later than December 11, 20 20, the parties shall file supplemental briefs (and, if appropriate, supporting papers) addressing the impact, if any, of the depositions on the pending motion. SO ORDERED., ( Deposition due by 11/20/2020.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/28/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER: The Court has been advised that counsel who represented Plaintiff for the limited purpose of settlement is not available to represent Plaintiff in connection with the pending motion for summary judgment and/or trial. In light of that, Plai ntiff's deadline to oppose the motion forsummary judgment is hereby EXTENDED to June 15, 2020. Defendants shall file any reply by June 22, 2020. The Court will continue its efforts to locate counsel willing to take the case (and will enter an order in the event that it succeeds); unless and until the Court orders otherwise, however, Plaintiff must file his opposition by the June 15, 2020 deadline or the motion will be deemed unopposed. Defense counsel shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and, within two days, file proof of such service. If mailing a copy of this Order would be a hardship, counsel shall advise the Court and it will mail the Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/7/2020) ( Responses due by 6/15/2020, Replies due by 6/22/2020.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER, The Court concludes that it is in the interests of justice to allow Defendants to file a new summary judgment motion limited to the question of qualified immunity. Defendants shall do so by April 17, 2020; Plaintiff shall file any oppositio n by May 15, 2020; and Defendants shall file any reply by May 22, 2020. In the meantime, the Court will seek to determine if counsel who represented Plaintiff for the limited purpose of settlement, see ECF No. 82, would be willing to represent Pla intiff for purposes of the motion and/or trial and, if not, will seek to locate other counsel willing to take the case in the event that it goes to trial. The Court will mail a copy of this Order and Defendants' April 1, 2020 letter (which, counsel indicates he is unable to mail) to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 4/17/2020., Responses due by 5/15/2020, Replies due by 5/22/2020.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/3/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER : The Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent plaintiff. The Court advises Plaintiff that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and the Court relies on volunteers. Due to a scarcity of volunteer attorneys, a lengthy period may pass before counsel volunteers to represent Plaintiff. Nevertheless, this litigation will progress at a normal pace. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Plaintiff directly. There is no gu arantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, and Plaintiff should be prepared to proceed with the case pro se. If Plaintiff does not want the Court to seek counsel to represent him, he must inform the Court by Friday, December 20, 2019. If Plaintiff has already found a volunteer attorney to represent him, the Court requests that Plaintiff's counsel so inform the Court immediately and contact the assigned Magistrate Judge to schedule a settlement conference to occur as soon as possible, pursuant to ECF No. 77. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppe dge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/4/19) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
76
OPINION AND ORDER re: 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Spillane, Benvenuto, and Tennariello filed by Joseph Tennaviello, Bridget Spillane, Brian Benvenuto. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for su mmary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and all of Minus's claims-except his unlawful strip search claim against Officers Benvenuto and Tennariello-are DISMISSED in their entirety. In particular, Plaintiff's claim for unl awful search of his person may proceed. In light of the the need for trial to resolve that claim, the Court exercises its discretion under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(e)(1), and will seek to obtain pro bono counsel for Plainti ff. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 174 (2d Cir. 1989). Further, the Court believes-in light of this ruling, the possibility that Plaintiff will obtain counsel in short order, and the likelihood that any damages on the unlawful sea rch claim would likely be small-that the parties should attempt to settle the case without the need for trial. To that end, by separate Order to be entered today, the Court is referring the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge (the Honorabl e Debra C. Freeman) for settlement purposes. No later than the earlier of one week after pro bono counsel enters a notice of appearance or January 10, 2020, the parties shall contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Freeman to schedule a sett lement conference as soon as possible. In the event that the case does not settle, the Court will issue a further Order with respect to the timing and procedures leading up to trial. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7; 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith and, thus, in forma pauperis status is denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Minus, to terminate ECF No. 71, and to terminate Spillane as a Defendant. Bridget Spillane (Shield #880) terminated. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/3/2019) (mro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
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 Southern 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.
