Johnson v. Reed et al
| Carl Michael Johnson |
| Kyle Reed, Thorton, Faith Watson and P. Pacheco |
| 1:2017cv08620 |
| November 7, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Colleen McMahon |
| 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
98
OPINION & ORDER re: 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Thorton, The City of Middletown New York, Kyle Reed. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety and d ismisses this action with prejudice. All of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED in accordance with this Opinion and Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 87, enter judgment in favor of the Defendant s, and close the case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of the Opinion and Order to Plaintiff and to show proof of service on the docket. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 2/8/2023) (ate) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
81
DECISION AND ORDER granting 69 Letter Motion for Discovery; denying 74 Motion to Strike docket entry and document 69 LETTER MOTION for Discovery preclusion addressed to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause from Alex Smith dated 05- 25-2021. filed by Thorton, Kyle Reed, 74 MOTION to Strike. filed by Carl Michael Johnson from the record. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to preclude (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's "motion to strike/impe ach" (ECF No. 74) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint at ECF No. 43 is determined to be the operative complaint in this matter. Defendants Reed, Thornton, and the City of Middletown, New York must file their answers to the Ame nded Complaint on or before April 13, 2022. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 69 and 74, and to mail a copy of this Decision and Order to the pro se Plaintiff.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 3/23/2022) (tg) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER: Defendants filed a letter motion on May 25, 2021, requesting that the Court preclude Plaintiff from using certain specified documents in support of his claims in this suit. ECF No. 69. According to Defendants' submission, they also s erved this letter motion on Plaintiff by first class mail the same day. ECF No. 69-2. Plaintiff may submit an opposition to this letter motion, not to exceed five pages, by no later than June 15, 2021. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Responses due by 6/15/2021) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 6/26/2021) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER: The Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order entered on April 13, 2020 remains the operative discovery schedule in this case. See ECF No. 38. That schedule set December 1, 2020 as the deadline for the completion of all discovery, and neither party has requested an extension of that deadline. Accordingly, the discovery phase of this matter is complete, with the exception of Plaintiff's February 26, 2021 document production deadline; as a result, no further proceedings are scheduled before the undersigned. The parties are reminded that they are scheduled for a telephonic status conference with the Honorable Nelson S. Romn on January 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. See ECF No. 59. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff and further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 1/14/2021) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
57
RESCHEDULING ORDER granting 56 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Defendant's letter motion at ECF No. 56 is GRANTED. The telephonic status conference before Magistrate Judge Krause is hereby rescheduled for Thursday, December 17, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. To access the teleconference, please follow these directions: (1) dial the meeting number: (877) 336-1831; (2) enter the access code: 2751700; and (3) press pound (#) to enter the teleconference as a guest. Should counsel experience any technical issues with the teleconferencing system, please contact Chambers at (914) 390-4070. Counsel for defendant must make arrangements with the appropriate correctional facility to have the plaintiff available via telephone. The Clerk of the Cou rt is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. Telephone Conference set for 12/17/2020 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 12/7/2020) (nb) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER: Defendants have submitted certain documents relating to civilian complaints made against the Police Officer Defendants for in camera review. I ruled on August 3, 2020, that certain documents were to be produced to Plaintiff, and that other do cuments would not be required to be produced. I also directed Defendants' counsel to produce certain pages missing from three of those reports, the ones made by Rosado, Bruen and Ronne. Counsel was able to produce the missing page from the Bruen and Ronne complaints and review by the Court leads to the conclusion that they do not need to be produced to Plaintiff. However, counsel has been unable to locate the missing page from the Rosado complaint. Although requiring Defendants to produce t he documents in question will open the door to likely irrelevant inquiry by Plaintiff, I cannot ignore the absence of complete production to the Court. Either the Police Department or counsel have apparently lost the page or pages between the front "Intra Agency Memo" dated December 4, 2012, and the signature page. The pages are not numbered, so the Court cannot know how many pages are missing. Numerous documents are attached to the Memo as exhibits, and those documents appear to be co mplete. Nevertheless, without the complete "Intra Agency Memo" the Court is unable to complete its in camera review sufficiently to conclude that the document should not be produced in discovery. This information, in theory, may be relevant to the credibility of Officer Reed, a Defendant in the case. Because those responsible for preparing and maintaining files, including files containing civilian complaints, failed to do their job in this case, I am requiring the entire document to be produced to Plaintiff, including the exhibits. Names other than "PO Reed" or "PO Kyle Reed" or "Mr. Rosado" or "M.[redact remainder of first name] Rosado," also spelled "Rosdao," are to be redacted; addresses, dates of birth, and phone numbers are to be redacted. The redacted documents are to be produced to Plaintiff within 14 days of the date of entry of this Order. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith on 9/29/2020) (kv)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER re: 47 Proposed Order filed by Thorton, Kyle Reed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff provide copies of the above-specified documents to the Office of the Corporation Counsel, Middletown City Hall, 16 James Street, Middletown, New Yo rk 10940 within thirty (30) days of receipt of a copy of this Order, and it is further ORDERED that failure to comply with this Order shall preclude Plaintiff from using any of the above-specified documents in support of his claims in motion practice or at trial in this matter. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith on 8/25/2020) (kv)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER: The party objecting to disclosure, claiming an insufficient response to a discovery request, or asserting a privilege bears the burden of coming forward by bringing the dispute to the attention of the court as hereinafter set forth. The obj ecting party has 3 business days to attempt an amicable resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not affirmatively resolved within 3 business days, the objecting party then has 5 business days to bring the issue to the attention of the court by a letter brief limited to two (2) double spaced pages. (As further set forth in this Order.) The attention of counsel and the parties is respectfully directed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d) regarding the conduct of depositions. If a privilege objection is raised at a deposition counsel are directed to contact chambers by telephone from the deposition for a ruling. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith on 4/13/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER: The Court waives the Initial Pre-trial Conference and directs the parties to confer and complete a Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (blank form attached hereto). Said Scheduling Order shall be submitted to chambers by March 24, 2020. After review and approval of the Scheduling Order, the Court will issue an Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith for general pretrial purposes. The parties are directed to contact Judge Smith within seven (7) business days of th e date of the Order of Reference to schedule a conference. Clerk of the Court directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff and show proof of service on the docket. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/3/2020) (rro) 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.
