From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arnold v. Westchester County

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Apr 16, 2010
09 Civ. 3727 (JSR) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2010)

Summary

recommending dismissal of a claim against county because complaint "[did] not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Cowan v. City of Mount Vernon

Opinion

09 Civ. 3727 (JSR) (GWG).

April 16, 2010


ORDER


This matter has been referred to the undersigned for general pretrial purposes.

Each party must immediately inform the Court of any change in that party's address or telephone number in the future. If a party fails to do so, the case may be dismissed or a default entered.

The Court is providing to the parties a pretrial schedule as set forth below. To the extent that any party wishes to object to this schedule, that party shall do so in writing mailed to the undersigned at: 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 on or before May 17, 2010. The Court will consider all written submissions. If a party seeks to have a conference with the court, the party may so state in a letter.

Unless the Court orders otherwise, however, the following schedule remains in effect:

All discovery must be completed by

1. All notices of depositions, interrogatories or documents requests must be served by defendants on or before June 16, 2010. All witnesses must be deposed by the defendants on or before August 16, 2010. 2. Defendants shall respond to the Standard Discovery in Prisoner Pro Se Actions pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.2, to the extent applicable, by July 16, 2010. 3. Disclosures of the identities and reports of experts, if any, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) will be made by July 16, 2010. The disclosure of identities and reports of any expert intended by an opposing party solely to rebut previously-disclosed expert evidence shall be made by July 30, 2010. 4. Depositions of experts shall be completed by August 16, 2010 5. August 16, 2010. 6. If a party intends to file a dispositive motion, that party must so state to all other parties in writing on or before August 16, 2010. In addition, if the assigned District Judge has a pre-motion conference requirement, that party must make the request to the District Judge for such conference on or before August 16, 2010 and send a copy of that request to the undersigned. 7. If the district judge has no pre-motion conference requirement, all pretrial motions, if any, must be filed by September 13, 2010. Such motion shall comport with the requirements for motions reflected in the assigned District Judge's Individual Practices. 8. Plaintiff will supply pretrial order materials to defendant(s), in accordance with the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, on or before September 13, 2010. 9. The parties will submit a joint pretrial order in accordance with rules of the assigned District Judge, on or before September 27, 2010. In the event any party fails to cooperate in the production of the joint pretrial order, each party shall submit to the Court its own portion of such order. 10. Should a dispositive motion be timely filed by any party, the dates listed in paragraphs 8 and 9 shall be extended until 30 days and 45 days respectively following the disposition of the dispositive motion. 11. Failure to comply with the terms of this Order may result in sanctions. Any application for an extension of the time limitations herein must be made as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to the party making the application. The application also must state the position of all other parties on the proposed extension and must show good cause therefor not foreseeable as of the date of this Order. Any application not in compliance with this paragraph will be denied. 12. Discovery motions — that is, any application pursuant to Rules 26 through 37 or 45 — not only must comply with ¶ 2.A. of the Court's Individual Practices but also must be made promptly after the cause for such a motion arises. In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances no such application will be considered if made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery. Untimely applications will be denied. Please be aware that the Pro Se Office at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Room 230, New York, New York ((212) 805-0175) may be of assistance in connection with court procedures.

SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Arnold v. Westchester County

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Apr 16, 2010
09 Civ. 3727 (JSR) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2010)

recommending dismissal of a claim against county because complaint "[did] not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Cowan v. City of Mount Vernon

dismissing a claim against the county because the complaint "[did] not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Estate of M.D. v. New York

dismissing a claim against the county because the complaint "[did] not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Lowery v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr.

dismissing a claim against the county because the complaint "[did] not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Vasquez v. Rockland Cnty.

dismissing claim against county because the complaint did "not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Aponte v. City of New York

dismissing claim against county because the complaint did "not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Staten v. Vill. of Monticello

dismissing claim against county because complaint did "not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Rennalls v. Alfredo

dismissing a claim against the county because the complaint “[did] not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy”

Summary of this case from Green v. City of Mount Vernon

recommending dismissal of a claim against county because complaint “does not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy”

Summary of this case from Cowan v. City of Mount Vernon

dismissing a claim against the county because the complaint "[did] not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy"

Summary of this case from Tieman v. City of Newburgh

dismissing claim against county because complaint did “not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy”

Summary of this case from Kucharczyk v. Westchester Cnty.

dismissing claim against county because complaint “does not allege the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy”

Summary of this case from Triano v. Town of Harrison

considering factual allegations contained in the various materials submitted by plaintiff pro se in connection with defendants' motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from McFadden v. New York
Case details for

Arnold v. Westchester County

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY ARNOLD Petitioner, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al. Respondents

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Apr 16, 2010

Citations

09 Civ. 3727 (JSR) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2010)

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. Rockland Cnty.

Thus, "to prevail on a claim against a municipality under [§] 1983 based on acts of a public official, a…

Triano v. Town of Harrison

Thus, “to prevail on a claim against a municipality under section 1983 based on acts of a public official, a…