Baez v. City of New York et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 10/23/17 that plaintiff's 16 Motion for Reconsideration is granted. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28:1915. plaintiffs second motion for reconsideration is granted an d the Court vacates its April 26, 2017 Order and the Clerks Judgment dismissing this action. The case is stayed pending the resolution of the criminal action. Plaintiff is directed to inform this Court no later than December 23, 2017 of the status of his criminal case and earlier if it is resolved. Since plaintiff previously had another complaint in this Court dismissed for failure to prosecute, he is advised that if he does not keep the Court apprised of the status of the case as required by this Order, this action will be dismissed. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 10/23/2017 ) c/m (Guzzi, Roseann)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------MELVIN BAEZ,
Plaintiff,
- against THE CITY OF NEW YORK; THOMAS
CAPRIOLA, C.O.; WILFREDO RAMOS,
C.O.; JAMES ARAUJO, C.O.; CAPTAIN
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------

C/M
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
17-cv-1767 (BMC)(PK)

COGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration is granted. Plaintiff has submitted an
amended complaint, as the Court directed him to do in April. The amended complaint addresses
the failures the Court identified with the original complaint. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
However, this case cannot proceed at the present time. As noted in this Court’s Order
denying his first motion for reconsideration, he has been charged, inter alia, with multiple counts
of second degree assault arising out of the incident which is the subject of this action. Those
charges remain pending in People v. Baez, No. 430-17 (Queens Cty. Sup. Ct.). Plaintiff’s
amended complaint seeks, in part, an injunction requiring the termination of the officers involved
(or possibly all officers). While the state court charges against him are pending, he may not
maintain claims for such relief pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), as this Court
should not interfere with the pending state court prosecution. And although plaintiff’s amended
complaint in this action also seeks damages, which are not strictly subject to Younger, see

Giuliani v. Blessing, 654 F.2d 189, 192-94 (2d Cir. 1981), it is also appropriate to stay this action
even as to his damage claims to prevent such interference. See Kirschner v. Klemons, 225 F.3d
227, 238 (2d Cir. 2000).
In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration is granted and the
Court vacates its April 26, 2017 Order and the Clerk’s Judgment dismissing this action. The
Clerk is directed to reopen this case. The case is stayed pending the resolution of the criminal
action. Plaintiff is directed to inform this Court no later than December 23, 2017 of the status of
his criminal case and earlier if it is resolved. Since plaintiff previously had another complaint in
this Court dismissed for failure to prosecute, he is advised that if he does not keep the Court
apprised of the status of the case as required by this Order, this action will be dismissed.
SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by Brian
M. Cogan

______________________________________
U.S.D.J.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October 23, 2017

2