Turner v. NYCDOCC et al

Filing 15

OPINION: The Plaintiff's Motion for a default judgment is denied. The deadline for the City to respond to his Complaint remains set for June 5, 2015. The deadline for Officer Plaskett to respond to his complaint remains set for June 15, 2015. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/8/2015) (ajs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------x
JOHN TURNER,
14 Civ. 7236

Plaintiff,

OPINION

-againstCITY OF NEW YORK, C.O. ROCKWELL, C.O.
SCOTT, C.O. ELLIS, C.O. PLASKETT, and
JOHN DOE CORRECTION OFFICER,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------x
A P P E A R A N C E S:

fi:;-..::::=;::::-.:.:::.·...::::~:::::::::.=::=:::.:::==::-1I
ll1t l"-',~;· p. '- ..... ~.:··,, ·i .,-', V
·r
~, r-:
l
_;" ,
~
I
' r-1.1 -. ,-.1 f " • ' .. •
I
I l·-" "'·- _.. ..

i:·, '

\

j· .

:

1
_,_-;

Plaintiff appears pro se

:

-:;-

'';. -~-

I,,,.,-·- ....... ,,_. _ _,,.. --···-·-··

Attorneys for the City of New York
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
By:
Daniel Guillermo Saavedra, Esq.

. .

1

• .

~

l,

1

D \i

. . 5-~--\~-~-;

- _:_ ... ~- _:· .. . ...·~·-·' ---::~.:-::.... Ii
-.
~·---~-···~---·~- ......, .. L.,.-,.- ....J

Plaintiff John Turner, a prisoner at Sing Sing Correctional
Facility, proceeding pro se, has moved pursuant to Rule 55 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a default judgment
against the Defendants, the City of New York and five
correctional officers allegedly involved in an attack on him on
May 15, 2013 at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.

For

the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

Prior Proceedings

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on September 5, 2014, alleging
that the four named correctional officers, along with an officer
whose name he did not know (the "Correction Officer
Defendants"), kicked, punched, and pepper sprayed him during an
incident on May 15, 2013.

(Dkt. No. 2)

Efforts to serve the

various Defendants are ongoing - although service has been made
on the City (Dkt. No. 7) and correctional officer Plaskett (Dkt.
No. 12), the City has not been able to find and serve the other
officers.

(Dkt. No. 13.)

On April 3, 2015, the City moved for

an extension of time to file an Answer, stating that it needed
time to investigate Plaintiff's allegations and noting that
several of the Correction Officer Defendants had not yet been
served.

(Dkt. No. 9.)

The Court granted the motion on April 7,

2015, setting a new deadline of June 5, 2015 for the City to

file its responsive pleading.

(Dkt. No. 10.)

On April 23,

2015, the Court issued an order directing the City to help the
Plaintiff identify and serve the remaining Correction Officer
Defendants, pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d
Cir. 1997).

On May 4, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion,

declaring that there was "no reason for extension on the answer"
and requesting a default judgment against the Defendants, or
other sanctions.

Applicable Standard

Pursuant to Rule 55(a), a default occurs "[w]hen a party
against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has
failed to plead or otherwise defend."

The decision whether to

enter a default judgment is "committed to the district court's
discretion."

Greathouse v. JHS Sec., Inc., No. 12-4521-cv, 2015

WL 1781036, at *10

(2d Cir. Apr. 20, 2015).

Similarly, Rule

6(b) allows the Court to extend the deadline to file an Answer
"for good cause," which is also a discretionary decision.
Garcia v. Goord, No. 01CIV797, 2002 WL 272418, at *l (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 2 6, 2 0 0 2) .

Analysis

As an initial matter, a default judgment is not warranted
because the Defendants are not in default.

See Docket No. 10

(setting the City's deadline to file an answer on June 5, 2015;
Docket No. 12 (setting correctional officer Plaskett's deadline
to file an Answer on June 15, 2015); Docket No. 13 (noting that
the additional Correction Officer Defendants have not yet been
served); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a) (1) (A)

(establishing that the time

to file an Answer is only triggered by service of the summons
and complaint).

Even if the Defendants had defaulted, the

decision to impose a default judgment is a discretionary one,
and the Court sees no good cause whatsoever to impose such a
drastic sanction.
Cir. 1974)

See Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707

(2d

(noting that a default judgment is a "most severe"

sanction, but within the discretion of the trial court).

While the Plaintiff may disagree with the Court's decision
to grant the Defendants an extension of time to respond to his
Complaint, Rule 6(b) places the decision within the Court's
discretion, and the grounds cited by the City for an extension
were eminently reasonable.

See Garcia, 2002 WL 272418, at *1

(approving denial of default judgment where the Court granted
the State additional time to file an Answer while investigating
the plaintiff's claims and several named defendants had not yet
been served).

The City is entitled to receive sufficient time

to investigate the Plaintiff's allegations, identify the
Correctional Officer Defendants, determine whether to represent
them, and file a response to the Plaintiff's pleading.

The

Plaintiff's objection to the City's need for more time is
particularly brazen when the Law Department is currently engaged
in identifying the remaining unserved Correction Officer
Defendants on his behalf, pursuant to the April 23 Valentin
order.

Although the Plaintiff, like most litigants, would

prefer that his adversaries have the minimum possible time to
respond, considerations of fairness and practicality apply as
much to the City as they do to any other party.

The request for

a default judgment is denied.

Conclusion

The Plaintiff's Motion for a default judgment is denied.
The deadline for the City to respond to his Complaint remains
set for June 5, 2015.

The deadline for Officer Plaskett to

respond to his complaint remains set for June 15, 2015.

It is so ordered.