Colson v. Mingo et al
| Ronald Colson |
| Mingo, Williams, Johnson, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 7, John Doe 8, John Doe 9, John Doe 10, John Doe 11, John Doe 12, John Doe 13, John Doe 14, John Doe 15, John Doe 16, John Doe 17, John Doe 18, John Doe 19, John Doe 20 and The City of New York |
| 1:2018cv02765 |
| March 23, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Clinton |
| Debra C. Freeman |
| Alison J. Nathan |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
152
OPINION AND ORDER re: 125 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by D. Ortiz, M. Daniels, Johnson, A. Henry, M. Gums-Francis, Mingo, C. Bell, O. Hyppolite, C. Carter, The City of New York, E. Lopera, T. Jackson, K. Ander son, Williams, W. Ross. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. For the reasons stated in Section II, Plaintiff's due process claims are DISMISSED. For the reasons stated in Sections III and IV, the motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's conditions of confinement and excessive force claims. For the reasons stated in Section V, the Court reserves judgment on spoliation. For the reasons stated in Se ctions VI and VII, the motion is DENIED without prejudice with respect to Plaintiff's Monell claims and which Individual Defendants were not personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff's application for leave t o file a second amended complaint, to specify the proper defendants for each of his claims, is GRANTED. As specified in section VIII, to limit the scope of amendment at this late juncture, the Court only permits Plaintiff to assert each claim again st those individuals who violated his constitutional rights, in the form of the challenged conditions of confinement on the bus or in pepper spraying him, by (1) directly causing, ordering or participating in such violation or (2) being made aware of the circumstances of such violation and failing to remedy it. The Court does not permit Plaintiff to amend to add any John Does or parties whose identities remain unknown. The Court will also not reopen fact discovery absent good cause. Plaintif f shall file his amended complaint no later than June 6, 2024. For the reasons stated in section VIII, the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff for the purposes of proceeding to trial. The Office o f Pro Se Litigation is respectfully requested to provide the Court with an update by April 8, 2024, as to whether an attorney is willing to represent Mr. Colson. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 25. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 6/6/2024.) (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 3/8/2024) (tg)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER No later than March 1, 2024, counsel for Defendants shall submit records demonstrating (1) when trial took place in the criminal case, People of the State of New York against Ronald Colson, Queens County Indictment No. 1925-2011, (2) the date Plaintiff was convicted and (3) the date Plaintiff was sentenced. The exhibits cited in ECF No. 26 do not make this clear. The present record indicates trial was scheduled to take place on May 17, 2016. ECF No. 131-2. Plaintiff testifi ed that he was sentenced around November 2, 2016. ECF No. 131-6 at 65:24-25. Counsel for Defendants shall submit records making clear whether, on August 30, 2016, Plaintiff had been convicted and if he had been sentenced. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 02/27/2024) (stt)
|
|
Filing
137
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT re: 136 Memo Endorsement, Set Deadlines. This case has been reassigned to the undersigned. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the ca se's reassignment, including ECF No. 136. Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendants' summary judgment motion is July 12, 2023. Otherwise, the briefing schedule previously set by the Court, see ECF No. 132, is still in effect. Plain tiff should seek leave for any amendment of the complaint in his opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants must familiarize themselves with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, including those for pro se litigants, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jessica-g-l-clarke. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 6/29/2023) (kv)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER denying 118 Motion to Appoint Counsel. On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff moved for appointment of pro bono counsel. ECF No. 118. The Court reserved judgment on Plaintiff's request pending submission of Defendants' motion for sum mary judgment. ECF No. 120. On March 30, 2023, Defendants filed their motion. ECF No. 125. In determining whether to grant an application for counsel, the Court must consider "the merits of [the] plaintiff's case, the plaintiff's abi lity to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 1 70, 172 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The first factor the merits of the plaintiffs case is, however, a "threshold requirement"; only if the plaintiff's case "seems likely to be of substance" should the Court "conside r [the] other criteria." Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986); Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. The Court must also be cognizant of the fact that volunteer attorney time is a precious commodity and, thus, should not be granted indiscriminately. Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Applying these standards, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. The Court reserves judgment on Defendants' motion, but having reviewed the record in this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff' ;s claims fail to "pass the test of likely merit" and thus that appointment of counsel is not warranted. Id. at 173. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to Defendants' motion by May 12, 2023. Defendants shall file any reply within on e week of Plaintiff's opposition. If Plaintiff wishes to cross-move for summary judgment, he must file a single, consolidated memorandum of law in support of his cross-motion and in opposition to Defendants' motion by the date set forth a bove. In that instance, Defendants' consolidated memorandum of law in reply to Plaintiff's opposition and in opposition to Plaintiff's motion would be due two weeks later and any reply by Plaintiff would be due two weeks after Defen dants' reply/opposition. Plaintiff is advised that there is a legal clinic in this District to assist people who are parties in civil cases and do not have lawyers. The Clinic is run by a private organization called the New York Legal Assista nce Group; it is not part of, or run by, the Court (and, among other things, therefore cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit). To receive limited-scope assistance from the Clinic, Plaintiff may mail a signed retainer and intake papers to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic at 40 Foley Square, Room LL22, New York, NY 10007. Once the paperwork is received, the Clinic will coordinate contact with the litigant, which may take up to two weeks. A copy of the Clinic's retainer and intake paperwork is attached to this Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 118 and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/31/2023) (ks)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER granting in part 123 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Court's endorsement of February 10, 2023 --- which counsel does not even deign to acknowledge --- stated in no uncertain terms that "[t]he Court will not gra nt any further extensions of Defendants'summary judgment deadline." ECF No. 122. It is bad enough that counsel moved for another extension notwithstanding that admonition. It is even worse that counsel waited until 5:15 p.m. on the date of the deadline (a Friday, no less) to do so --- itself a violation of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, which require that motions for extensions be made at least 48 hours before the deadline. The Court expects better from counsel - -- especially from counsel for the City --- and would be on firm ground denying the request and denying any motion for summary judgment as untimely. But the Court will not do that --- and grudgingly grants counsel an extension to Thursday, March 3 0, 2023. Counsel should not expect such courtesies going forward. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 123 and to mail a copy of this endorsed letter to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/24/2023) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER granting 121 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. The Court will not grant any further extensions of Defendants' summary judgment deadline. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 121 and to mail this endorsed letter to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/10/2023) (jca)
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER: Upon reflection, the Court concludes that Defendants should proceed with their planned motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 114. Mindful that Defendants had less than one week left to prepare their motion papers when the deadline was extended sine die, see ECF No. 115, Defendants shall file any such motion by February 13, 2023. The Court will reserve judgment on Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel until after it sees Defendants' motion. When ruling on the m otion for appointment of counsel, the Court will also set a deadline for Plaintiff to file any opposition to Defendants' motion (and any cross-motion). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 2/13/2023.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/30/2023) (tg)
|
|
Filing
115
ORDER granting 114 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. Further extension requests are unlikely to be granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 114. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/3/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
109
ORDER granting 108 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application Granted. This conference is hereby rescheduled to Wednesday, May 25 at 2 p.m. (Telephone Conference set for 5/25/2022 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo on 5/17/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER. On April 27, 2022, this case was reassigned to me for general pretrial supervision. The parties are ordered to file a joint letter no later than May 10, 2022, providing the Court an update on the current status of discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo on 5/3/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER: This case has been reassigned to the undersigned. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, all dates and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the case's reassignment, except that any currently scheduled conference or oral argument with the Court is adjourned pending further order of the Court (excluding any appearances scheduled before the assigned Magistrate Judge). All counsel must familiarize themselves with the Court's Individual Rules, which are ava ilable at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Furman. It is hereby ORDERED that no later than April 18, 2022, the parties shall file on ECF a joint letter, described below, updating the Court on the status of the case. The joint letter shall not exceed five (5) pages, and shall provide the following information in separate paragraphs, as further set forth herein. If this case has been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel are not required to submit such letter, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination is filed on the docket prior to the deadline, using the appropriate ECF Filing Event. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/11/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER granting 68 Letter Motion for Discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Warden or other official in charge of Green Haven Correctional Facility produce by video conferencing inmate Ronald Colson, DIN No. 13-A-4431, within the facility for t he taking of his deposition commencing on December 29, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., and for so long thereafter as the deposition continues; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff appear in such place as designated by the Superintendent or other official in char ge of Green Haven Correctional Facility so that his deposition may be taken by video conferencing; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's deposition will be conducted by remote means pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4); and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that also present at the deposition by remote means will be a court reporter to be designated by Defendants as well as the attorneys for Defendants. SO ORDERED. (This resolves Dkt 68). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 12/17/2020) (kv)
|
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.
