Stroud v. City Of New York et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court GRANTS Deft's request to file the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Docket #32). Deft shall serve the motion by 2/15/13; Stroud shall serve his response by 3/15/13; Deft shall serve the reply, if any, and file the fully-briefed motion by 4/8/13. (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 1/16/2013) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

\
,

BROOKLYN OFFICE

·--------------------------------------------------------------x
ROGER STROUD,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff,
10-CV-3776 (SLT)(RML)

-againstCITY OF NEW YORK et aL,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------X
TOWNES, United States District Judge:

In this case, prose plaintiff Roger Stroud asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Police Officer Kristin Schafer. The action was stayed pending the conclusion of Stroud's
underlying criminal trial. On August 29, 2012, Defendant filed a request to lift the stay and to
file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docket No 32).
By letter dated September 8, 2012, Stroud opposed lifting the stay and requested additional time
to respond to the pre-motion conference request. (Docket No. 33). On October 12, 2012, this
Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's request to lift the stay and
directing Stroud to file his response, if any, to the request by November 7, 2012. (Docket No. 34
at 2). The Court advised Stroud to focus his attention on Defendant's proposed reasons for
dismissal, specifically whether his federal claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution
survive in light of his underlying criminal conviction. (Docket No. 34 at 2-3). After several
extensions due to his prison relocations, Stroud's response was received on January 9, 2013.
(Docket No. 40). In his letter, Stroud continues to dispute the underlying state criminal case and
does not address Defendant's arguments.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's request to file the motion to dismiss

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 32). Defendant shall serve the motion by February 15,
2013; Stroud shall serve his response by March 15, 2013; and Defendant shall serve the reply, if
any, and file the fully-briefed motion by AprilS, 2013.

SO ORDERED.

/SANDRA L. TOwNE-S '
United States District Judge

Dated:

Q.. -· ·

A

•

-

~k

/

01 ~

0 I 2>

2