Komatsu v. The City of New York et al
| Towaki Komatsu |
| The City of New York, Howard, Rafael Beato, Ralph Nieves, Gerola, John Doe 1, Harold Miller, Pinny Ringel, Rachel Atcheson, Detective Berkowitz, Anthony Manzi, Sergeant Brunner, Dominguez and New York State Office of Court Administration |
| 1:2018cv03698 |
| April 26, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Bronx |
| Unassigned |
| 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
627
OPINION AND ORDER for 583 Report and Recommendations. For the foregoing reasons, the Reports recommendation is adopted in part and rejected in part as set forth above, and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the case. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/27/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
621
ORDER: As explained in detail in a Report and Recommendation issued on May 28, 2021 (Docket # 583), plaintiff in this matter has repeatedly violated Court orders regarding filings he is permitted to make in this case. In an Order dated July 23, 2021 (Docket # 615) ("the July 23 Order"), the Court notedthat plaintiff had continued to make a number of filings that violated previous Court orders. The July 23 Order directed plaintiff to "make no further filings of any kind in this ca se until Judge Schofield issues a ruling on the Report and Recommendation." Id. The Order warned plaintiff that if he "violates this order or any other order,... he may be sanctioned further in this case, including potentially through a d irective to the Clerk that the Clerk accept no filings from plaintiff in this case." Id. Notwithstanding the clear language of the July 23 Order, plaintiff has now violated the July 23 Order on at least four separate occasions as reflected in th e letters filed as Docket ## 616-19. Those letters themselves are in violation of previous Court orders as well. See, e.g., Memorandum Endorsement, filed April 12, 2021 (Docket # 542) (ordering plaintiff to "make no further applications except as they relate to" a sanction motion and order to show cause). The Court can think of no step that can be taken that will ensure plaintiff's compliance with the Court's orders, including the July 23 Order, other than by issuing a dire ctive to the Clerk to reject further filings in this case. Accordingly, until Judge Schofield issues a ruling on the Report and Recommendation (Docket # 583), the Clerk is directed to accept no further filings in this case from plaintiff except for ( 1) an objection (that is, only one objection) to this Order under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and/or (2) a notice of appeal of this Order and/or a notice of appeal of any ruling on an objection to this Order. Any other document transmitted by plaintiff may be discarded. The Clerk is requested to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/09/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
615
ORDER: With regard to the request in Docket # 613, the plaintiff's recent filings, including Docket ## 611 and 612, are all in violation of past orders in this case. There is no reason at this time to single out docket ## 611 and 612 for strikin g. The defendants need not respond to any filing by plaintiff in this case in the future unless specifically directed by the Court to do so. In light of plaintiff's deliberate noncompliant behavior, the Court now orders that plaintiff make no fu rther filings of any kind in this case until Judge Schofield issues a ruling on the Report and Recommendation. And even after the ruling from Judge Schofield, he still must comply with any governing orders issued in the past. If plaintiff violates th is order or any other order, he is warned that he may be sanctioned further in this case, including potentially through a directive to the Clerk that the Clerk accept no filings from plaintiff in this case. The defendants are directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/23/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
595
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's applications identified in the third paragraph of this Order are DENIED because they violate the Orders at Dkt. Nos. 512, 542. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' application at Dkt. No. 592 is GRANTED in part. By June 18, 2021, Plaintiff may refile his objections to the Report not to exceed 10 pages, see Individual Rule III.B.1, or Plaintiff may rely on the first 10 pages of Plaintiff's previously filed objections at Dkt. No. 5 85 and need not file anything new. The deadline for Defendants to file their response to Plaintiff's objections to the Report is hereby extended to July 8, 2021. Plaintiff is advised that any materials emailed to the Court that do not comply with the Orders at Dkt. Nos. 512 and 542 will be deleted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/11/2021) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
581
ORDER re: 579 Letter, filed by Towaki Komatsu. For the reasons stated above, there is no basis on which the recusal motion could be granted. The application to recuse is therefore denied. Defendants are directed to email a copy of this Order to plaintiff (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 05/28/2021) (Gorenstein, Gabriel)
|
|
Filing
547
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refrain from using inappropriate, crude or profane language in his communications with the Court. Refusal to comply with this Order may result in sanctions including dismissal of this action with pr ejudice. See id. Plaintiff may file objections to the Order at Dkt. No. 542 provided the filing uses appropriate language. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike the letter at Dkt. No. 546 as it contains foul and offensive language and to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/15/2021) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
539
ORDER: Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Docket # 520) and March 18 Order (Docket # 524), see Letter from Towaki Komatsu, filed March 31, 2021 (Docket # 537), is granted.Plaintiff sh all file his response to the Order to Show Cause on or before April 16, 2021. Defendants may respond within 14 days after plaintiff files his response. Plaintiff shall file the response required by the March 18 Order on or before April 23, 2021. On a separate point, plaintiff has made a number of applications relating to discovery rulings (most recently Docket # 538). The Court has stayed all discovery in this matter (Docket # 512) and will not entertain any applications regarding discovery unle ss and until that stay is vacated. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to stop making applications in this case relating to discovery. Plaintiff is again warned that failure to comply with this or any other Court order may result in dismissal of this case. D efendants are directed to email plaintiff a copy of this Order. The Clerk is requested to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. SO ORDERED., ( Show Cause Response due by 4/16/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/01/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
536
ORDER: Plaintiff is ordered to comply with the March 18 Order on or before April 9, 2021. Plaintiff is warned that any non-compliance with this Order (or any other Order) may by itself result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case with prejudi ce. Defendants are directed to email plaintiff a copy of this Order. The Clerk is requested to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/30/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
530
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration, at Dkt. Nos. 503, 515, 516, 521 and 529 are DENIED as they are untimely. It is further ORDERED that objections to Judge Gorenstein's, Orders, at Dkt. Nos. 500, 502 and 526 are overruled. Judge Gorenstein's Orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is further ORDERED that the requests to amend the Complaint, at Dkt. No. 522, and file discovery materials under seal, at Dkt. No. 515, are denied. General pre-trial requests, including permission to amend a Complaint and to file discovery materials, should be addressed to Judge Gorenstein. See Dkt. No. 27 (referring this matter to Judge Gorenstein for general pre-trial). Plaintiff is advised that the Court is not permitted to provide legal advice. Pro se parties may seek legal advice through the New York Legal Assistance Group ("NYLAG") for Pro Se Litigants. NYLAG's contact information is included below. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/26/2021) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
524
ORDER: Accordingly, the Court makes the following rulings: (1) The Clerk of the Court is directed to make Docket # 521 viewable only to the Court and to any attorney for a party to this case though the ECF system; (2) Pla intiff is directed to file an affidavit (or sworn statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746) on or before March 25, 2021, stating whether he has publicly disclosed-in any form, whether altered or otherwise-any information produced to him by the defendants that was designated as confidential under the Confidentiality Order. The affidavit should specifically address the claim regarding the court filing (Docket # 521) and the Twitter account. It must also give a complete descrip tion of all circumstances in which plaintiff has disclosed any documents produced by defendants and designated as confidential to anyone in any other manner. (3) In the filing required by the Court's Order of March 12, 2021 ( Docket # 520), plaintiff is directed to address whether his disclosure of material produced by defendants pursuant to the Confidentiality Order warrants, either by itself or in combination with any other conduct, sanctions, including the sanct ion of dismissal. (4) Per their request, City Letter at 2 n. 2, defendants are directed to file under seal an affidavit or other sworn statement attaching the relevant tweets and explaining the basis for the affiant's knowledge. Defendants shall serve the affidavit (with attachments) on plaintiff. Plaintiff shall not disclose the contents of any material attached to the affidavit to any person or in any Court filing unless an Order of the Court has been obtained permitting such disclosure. (5) If plaintiff has in fact publicly posted or disclosed any material consisting of or derived from documents produced to him by defendants that were marked as confidential, he must delete those posts or disclosures (or the confidential material therein). Defendants are directed to email a copy of this Order to plaintiff. In addition, the Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/18/2021) (mro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
512
ORDER: Defendants have moved for dismissal of this case as a sanction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), or, in the alternative, for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Letter from Andrew B. Spears, filed February 3, 2 021 (Docket # 492); Letter from Andrew B. Spears, filed February 4, 2021 (Docket # 496). The application is now fully briefed. Pending the disposition of a motion seeking dismissal, "a district court has considerable discretion to stay discover y pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)." Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In considering whether to stay discovery, courts look to three facto rs: the strength of the motion, the prejudice to plaintiff that would result, and the breadth of discovery sought and the burden on the defendant of responding to it. See id. After reviewing the motion papers, the Court finds that a balancing of thes e factors weighs in favor of a stay. Defendants have presented "substantial arguments for dismissal" of plaintiff's case. Id. (citing Spencer Trask Software and Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Intern. LTD., 206 F.R.D. 367, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 20 02)). Any prejudice to plaintiff to forgo discovery while the motion is adjudicated would be minimal. Finally, the burden on defendants in complying with the current discovery deadline outweighs any potential prejudice. Accordingly, the Court order s that all discovery in this action is stayed pending the determination of the defendants' motion and all of the Court's scheduling deadlines are similarly stayed. If the case continues after the disposition of the defendants' motion, the parties shall, within 7 days, propose a new schedule. Defendants are directed to email a copy of this Order to plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/23/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
497
ORDER re: 495 Letter,, filed by Towaki Komatsu. The request for a stay (Docket # 495) is denied inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, prejudice, or that it would be in the public interest to issue a stay. All requests in Docket # 493 are denied as unsupported. The Court notes that many of the requests for reconsideration are untimely. See Local Civil Rule 6.3. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to cease making untimely applications for rec onsideration in this case. If he does so in the future, he may be sanctioned, including through a dismissal of this action. Defendants are directed to email a copy of this Order to plaintiff. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/5/2021) (js)
|
|
Filing
494
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of defendants' letter dated February 3, 2021 (Docket # 492). The Court's pre-motion conference requirement is waived. Defendants shall file a letter on or before February 4, 2021, stating whether they elect t o rely on their letter (Docket # 492) as the application for sanctions or whether they will file a separate motion. If defendants elect to rely on the letter, plaintiff shall file his response to the letter (either a letter or memorandum of law) on o r before February 11, 2021. Any reply shall be due February 18, 2021. If defendants elect to file a separate motion, it shall be filed by February 11, 2021. Plaintiff shall file any response to the motion (either a letter or memorandum of law) by Feb ruary 18, 2021. Any reply shall be due February 25, 2021. No matter which method is selected by defendants, no party's letter or memorandum of law filed with respect to the application or motion shall exceed 12-1/2 single-spaced pages or 25 double-spaced pages. Defendants shall serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff by email. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/3/2021) (rch)
|
|
Filing
486
ORDER REGARDING MISTAKEN PRODUCTION OF PROTECTED MATERIAL: Any party's production or disclosure in this proceeding of information or material that is not responsive, contains personally identifiable information, and/or is protected by any privi lege or protection recognized by law (collectively, "Protected Material"), whether inadvertent or otherwise, shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of any claim of privilege, protection, personally identifiable information, and/or non- responsiveness applicable to that material or its subject matter in this Action or any other federal or state proceeding, and shall be governed by the procedures set forth herein. If a party produces Protected Material in discovery without intending a waiver of any claim to privilege, protection, personally identifiable information, and/or non-responsiveness, the producing party shall notify any receiving party in writing of this fact and may request that the Protected Material be returned or d estroyed. If a party receives such a request, it shall not further inspect, copy or make any other use of the Protected Material until an order of the Court is obtained or there is a written agreement between the parties regarding the use, return, or destruction of the Protected Material. If agreement cannot be reached, either party may make an application to the Court for resolution. No Protected Material may be disclosed publicly as part of any such application. The defendants shall email a copy of this Order to plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/29/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
474
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER:...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/15/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
470
ORDER: ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration, as outlined above, are DENIED as they are untimely. A motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after the Court's determination of the original motion. See Local Civil Rule 6.3. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to Judge Gorenstein's December 18, 2020, Order at Dkt. No. 450 are overruled as they are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/13/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
457
ORDER: The defendants are directed to file a response to Docket # 453 on or before January 7, 2021. The defendants shall mail or email a copy of this Order to plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/30/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
450
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of defendants' letter, seeking to compel plaintiff Towaki Komatsu to "provide full and complete responses to Defendants' First Set of Document Requests and Interrogatories." Letter from Andrew B. Spe ars at 1, filed November 4, 2020 (Docket # 432) ("Spears Letter"). Komatsu has responded to that letter in a filing contesting defendants' requested relief, though in some instances providing additional information. See Letter from Tow aki Komatsu, filed November 20, 2020 (Docket # 437) ("Komatsu Opp."). After considering the parties' submissions, the Court resolves defendants' application as follows. Defendants seek to compel responses to a mix of interrogatori es and document requests. See generally Spears Letter at 3-22. The Court will address each request in turn. As set forth herein. Finally, Document Request No. 20 asks for "documents or information" that Komatsu distributed or wanted to dist ribute to the public at various meetings or events that he attended or attempted to attend in March and April of 2017. Spears Letter at 21. Komatsu reiterates prior objections which this Court has rejected. See Spears Letter at 21-22 (quoting Komatsu 's responses); Komatsu Opp. at 24. The requested relief is granted. Komatsu's opposition indicates that he will produce the above information "after [defendants] first provide me all of the discovery material that I have sought from th em." Komatsu Opp. at 24. But a party may not withhold discovery on the ground that an opposing party has not complied with its discovery obligations. Thus, this objection is overruled.Komatsu shall serve on defendants complete responses to the i nterrogatories and documents requests as stated above on or before January 15, 2021. The Clerk is requested to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/18/2020) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
446
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to Judge Gorenstein's November 24, 2020, Order (Dkt. No. 440) are overruled. Judge Gorenstein's acted within his discretion when he extended the discovery deadline in this acti on. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/10/2020) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
436
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's objection to Judge Gorenstein's November 13, 2020, Order (Dkt. No. 434) is overruled. Judge Gorenstein's interpretation of FRCP 10(b) as applicable only to pleadings, such as a Complaint or Answer, is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/19/2020) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
428
ORDER: With regard to plaintiff's letter of September 24, 2020 (Docket # 426), as stated in the Court's Order of October 31, 2019, "[n]o summary judgment motion shall be filed prior to the close of discovery without permission of the C ourt." The Court now directs that any request to Judge Schofield for permission to make a summary judgment motion, as required by paragraph 5.A of her Special Rules & Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, shall be filed on the date that discovery clo ses. That date is currently November 30, 2020 (Docket # 405). Any other request for relief in Docket # 426 is denied. With regard to defendants' letter dated September 29, 2020 (Docket # 427), the Court notes that plaintiff's response was d ue, absent agreement or court order, on October 1, 2020. As of today, no response has been filed on the docket. Be that as it may, the Court finds defendants' letter insufficiently detailed to allow the Court to consider it. The defendant is dir ected to file a new letter that identifies each response with respect to which it seeks relief. The request and response shall be quoted verbatim in the letter. Following each quotation of the request/response, the defendants shall specify their obje ctions to the response and the relief sought. Plaintiff shall respond to the letter within 7 days of its filing. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this letter to plaintiff at the address shown on the docket sheet. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/07/2020) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
424
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, for substantially the same reasons provided in the August 10, 2020 Order (Dkt. 418), the requests for reconsideration of the Orders at Dkts. 118 and 239 and of Judge Gorenstein's Order at Dkt. 405 are DENIE D. It is further ORDERED that, because the letters at Dkts. 420, 421 and 423 do not identify an intervening change of controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice, the requests for reconsideratio n of the Order at Dkt. 418 are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/10/2020) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
418
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration of the March Order and the September Order are DENIED. These motions are untimely, and on that basis alone the applications are denied. A motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after the Court's determination of the original motion. See Local Civil Rule 6.3. A separate basis for denial is that the arguments that the orders "were not in [Plaintiff's] interests," "had no basis in law nor fact," see ECF 410, and must construe Plaintiff's legal arguments in their strongest form, see ECF 416, are not a basis for reconsideration as they do not identify an intervening change of controlling law, new evi dence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's objection to Judge Gorenstein's July 28, 2020 Order (ECF 405) is OVERRULED. Judge Gorenstein granted Plaintiff four ext ensions of time from the initial due date of March 16, 2020 until May 1, May 27, June 17 and July 20 to file a Third Amended Complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which Plaintiff failed to do. See ECF 320, 339, 3 44, 345, 346, 347, 371, 378, 405. The final extension stated that "[t]here will be no further extensions of this deadline." See ECF 378. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend stating that he had submitted "6 completely finished pleadings." See ECF 399 at 8. Judge Gorenstein denied the motion to amend on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, and the Court's orders. Specifically, th e proposed submission was not "a short and plain statement of the claim" and was not in compliance with the format outlined by multiple Court orders. This ruling is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and accordingly, is not an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See generally Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that leave to amend may be properly denied for "repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments pre viously allowed"); accord Rattray v. City of New York, 2020 WL 404979 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Plaintiff's request for equitable tolling of the deadline to file a Third Amended Complaint, see ECF 410, accordingly is DENIED as moot. In a recent letter (ECF 415), Plaintiff also asserts that Judge Gorenstein and the undersigned have engaged in "repeated acts of judicial misconduct" and requests reassignment of this case. Plaintiff's letter is construed as a motio n to recuse, as litigants have no right to seek reassignment. See Southern District of New York's Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges ("These rules are adopted for the internal management of the case load of the court and shall not be deemed to vest any rights in litigants."). This motion is DENIED as it makes no colorable allegations of any basis for recusal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/10/2020) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Modified on 8/10/2020 (va).
|
|
Filing
391
ORDER: ORDERED that Plaintiff shall comply with the December Order and the May Order. See ECF 286, 358. Plaintiff shall refrain from making further filings in this case, except with respect to the remaining claim, the motion to amend the complaint, u pon direction from this Court or Judge Gorenstein, or for the purpose of filing an appeal. In light of Plaintiff's prior disregard of the Court's orders, if Plaintiff violates these court orders in the future by making impermissible filings , he is warned that this case will be dismissed with prejudice. "With prejudice" means that the claims in this case will be dismissed and he will not be able to file those claims again. Nothing in this Order prohibits the Plaintiff from com mencing a new case to raise matters unrelated to this case, or from making filings in any other cases that may already be pending. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/13/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
380
ORDER: Construing the plaintiff's letter of June 8, 2020 (Docket # 379) as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order of June 8, 2020 (Docket # 378), it is denied. To the extent it was intended to seek new forms of relief, it violate s the directive in the Order of May 21, 2020 (Docket # 358). On a separate point, the Court notes that this letter contains what is characterized as the home address of a City employee, as well as the birthdate of that individual. The Court directs t he Clerk to substitute a version of Docket # 379 that redacts this individual's home address and birthdate. In addition, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall not file any papers in the futurecontaining the home address, personal telephone n umber, personal email address, social security number, birthdate, names of relatives, or any other personal information (other than name and information relating to business or employment) of any person. To the extent in the future some original docu ment relevant to this case contains such personal information, such information shall be redacted. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/10/2020) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
373
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff is reminded that he was ordered to make no further filings that are unrelated to his motion to file a Third Amended Complaint or that are expressly directed by this Court or by Magistrate Judge Gorenstein. See ECF 358. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/03/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
347
ORDER: Plaintiff seeks "3 to 4 days" to file his motion to amend (Docket # 343). At the same time, plaintiff has submitted several documents that are intended to be proposed third amended complaints (Docket ## 344-346). The Court notes for plaintiff's benefit that his motion to amend must be accompanied by a copy of a single proposed third amended complaint. In other words, the proposed third amended complaint must be a single document with consecutively numbered paragraphs. The r ecently-filed proposed third amended complaints (Docket ## 344-346) do not meet this requirement and thus will not be considered. Given that plaintiff apparently did not understand he had to submit a single document ashis third amended complaint, the Court will grant additional time for the filing of the motion to amend. Plaintiff's deadline for filing the motion to amend, with an attached proposed third amended complaint, is extended to May 27, 2020. The Clerk is requested to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 5/27/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/06/2020) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
339
ORDER: The defendants' motion to stay discovery (Docket # 331) is granted. In addition, discovery is stayed pending the filing and disposition of plaintiff's planned motion to amend his complaint given that disposition of that motion may affect the scope of discovery. The plaintiff's motion to amend was due on March 16, 2020. (Docket # 320). It was never filed, however. The Court construes plaintiff's recent filing (Docket # 334) as seeking an extension of that deadlin e. The Court will grant an extension of the deadline to May 1, 2020. Any opposition shall be filed within 14 days thereafter. Any reply may be filed within 7 days thereafter. The Court will also enlarge the page limitations for the memorandum of l aw accompanying the motion to 15 pages. All other pending requests for relief by plaintiff addressed to the undersigned are denied. The Court notes that, contrary to the statement in plaintiff's letter (Docket # 334), the Court in fact has no p ower to require an attorney to represent plaintiff but only has the power to appoint an attorney who volunteers. The Court has requested such a volunteer. (Docket # 260). To date, the pro se office has not found such a volunteer and given the pass age of time during which no counsel has volunteered, it appears unlikely that one will be found. The Southern District of New York has instituted new procedures for filing by a pro se party that do not require presence at the Courthouse. Plaintiff has the option of either mailing the materials or emailing them to the pro se office. Specific instructions for emailing are available athttps://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/2020-04-08-how-to-create-a-pdf-pro-se-instructions.pdf Defendants' counsel shall mail and email a copy of this Order to plaintiff and shall file proof of such service within five days., Motions due by 5/1/2020. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/10/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
332
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall notify pro se Plaintiff of this new temporary filing. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/6/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
320
ORDER: With regard to defendants' letter of February 27, 2020 (Docket # 319), the Court rules as follows: The deadline for plaintiff to file his proposed motion to amend the complaint is set for March 16, 2020. Any opposition is due 14 days afte r the motion is filed. Any reply is due 7 days after the opposition is filed.The parties should not expect a ruling the from the Court immediately on the motion to amend. Accordingly, it is suggested that the deposition of plaintiff be adjourned for now and be rescheduled after the motion to amend is decided. If it becomes necessary to seek an extension of the discovery schedule, an application may be made at the appropriate time under paragraph 1.E of the Court's Individual Practices. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 3/16/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/02/2020) Copies Sent By Chambers. (ama)
|
|
Filing
318
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion requesting to file a Third Amended Complaint. The motion may not exceed ten pages and must comply with Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's Individual Rules. The motion shall state how Pl aintiff intends to amend his current Complaint, and shall not include any additional information. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/13/2020) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
311
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the requests for discovery unrelated to the remaining claim are DENIED. The request for discovery related to the remaining claim is DENIED. See ECF 286 (Ordering Plaintiff to refrain from making further filings in thi s case, except with respect to the remaining claim or upon direction from Judge Gorenstein). It is further ORDERED that the request to file an amended complaint is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the Opinion is DE NIED. A motion for reconsideration may be granted only "when the party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Farmer v. Uni ted States, No. 15 Civ. 6287, 2017 WL 3448014, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2014). Plaintiff's request does not identify new evidence that was not available when the Court issued the Opinion. The request also does not indicate a change in controllin g law or establish a clear error or manifest injustice in the Opinion. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/28/2020) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
296
ORDER terminating 248 Letter Motion to Compel. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is further respectfully directed to close Docket No. 248, as Docket No. 249 substantially addresses Defendant's requests. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/20/2019) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
294
ORDER: denying 248 Letter Motion to Compel. With regard to defendants' letter of November 20, 2019 (Docket # 275), and plaintiff's response dated December 5, 2019 (Docket # 284), the Court rules as follows. The Court denies the defendant s' motion to stay Monell discovery at this time. Whether an official policy regarding plaintiff's treatment was the impetus behind the April 27, 2017, incident may bear upon the claims against the individual defendants as well. That being s aid, appropriate Monell discovery certainly does not include all aspects of any individual incidents. It instead must relate to the question of whether there was an official policy that caused plaintiff's alleged injury. The Court makes no rulin g at this time whether it will be appropriate to bifurcate this case for purposes of trial. With respect to defendants' request to deny discovery as to "unrelated matters," the Court agrees that discovery must be relevant to the claims that have survived the motion to dismiss and only to those claims. Also, discovery requests must be not only relevant to the surviving claims but also proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a document request or seri es of requests do not meet these criteria, the Federal Rules permit the defendants to object to the requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). Once objection is made, it will then be plaintiff responsibility to determine whether he has a basis to see k relief with respect to any request that has been objected to. As to any discovery disputes, the parties must follow paragraph 2.A of the Court's Individual Practices and comply with the Court's Order of October 31, 2019 (Docket # 261 ). T he Court notes that plaintiff's response suggests that it would be appropriate to have the meet-and-confer required by paragraph 2.A of the Court's Individual Practices take place in public. That is not the case. It may take place only by t elephone or in the office of an attorney. If the parties cannot agree on a location, it shall take place by telephone. To not inhibit the free flow of communication, neither side may make an audio recording of any telephone conference between the par ties without all participants' written permission. With regard to plaintiff's letter of December 16, 2019 (Docket # 293), the Court does not give legal advice. The Court's Pro Se Intake Unit has prepared a document called "Discove ry Guide for Pro Se Litigants" which is available on the Court's website. In addition, the NewYork Legal Assistance Group ((212) 659-6190), located at Room LL22 40 Centre Street New York, NY 10007, may be able to offer assistance. Finally, the Court notes that a number of plaintiff's submissions, such as the December 16, 2019, letter, state that the plaintiff is "order[ing]" the Court to take a particular action or actions. Litigants before the Court do not have the powe r to issue an order and thus do not have the power to "order" the Court to take an action. In the future, the Court will not act on any letter that contains an "order" from a party. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/18/2019) Copies Sent By Chambers. (ama)
|
|
Filing
286
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refrain from making further filings in this case, except with respect to the remaining claim or upon direction from Judge Gorenstein. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/10/2019) (ks)
|
|
Filing
274
ORDER re: 273 Letter,, filed by Towaki Komatsu. The Court rules asfollows. 1. The application to expand initial interrogatories beyond the scope of Local Civil Rule 33.3(a) is denied. In light of this ruling, it is unclear whether plaintiff st ill requires an extension of the deadline for service of the initial interrogatories. Nonetheless, the Court will extend the current deadline by one week to December 9, 2019. 2. As to future interrogatories after service of the initial interrogatorie s, the Court expects both sides to comply with the limitation on numbers contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(l). If either side, after serving interrogatories compliant with that rule (and, of course, compliant with Local Civil Rule 33.3(b)), believes it has a basis for seeking a court order permitting service of more than 25 interrogatories, it should supply the proposed additional interrogatories to the other side and, if agreement cannot be reached, may make an application to the Court in conformity with paragraph 2.A of the Court's Individual Practices. 3. All other requests for relief are denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/14/2019) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (kv)
|
|
Filing
239
OPINION AND ORDER re: 80 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Ramon Dominguez, Anthony Manzi, Matthew Brunner, 85 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Detective Berkowitz, Harold Miller, Howard Redmond, Yu Lie, The City of New York, Ralph Nieves, Rafael Beato, Pinny Ringel, Gerola, Rachel Atcheson. For the foregoing reasons, the State Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Cit y Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: Defendants Ringel and Miller are dismissed. The claims that Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated at the Town Hall survive against Defendants Re dmond, Beato, Liu, Nieves and Gerola. The Monell claim survives against the City. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 80, 85, and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to pro se Plaintiff. Harold Miller and Pinny Ringel terminated. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/30/2019) (ne) 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.
