Edris v. City of New York et al

Filing 18

ORDER: granting 16 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. Defendant's proposed briefing schedule is adopted. Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss by December 9, 2022. Plaintiff may file a response by January 13 , 2023, but is not required to do so. No reply shall be filed unless requested by the Court. The stay of the deadline to respond to the Complaint and of discovery remains in place. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of compelling circumstances. So Ordered. 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 11/21/2022) (ama)

Case 1:22-cv-07095-LGS-GWG Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 2

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

THOMAS LAI
Senior Counsel
E-mail:[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

November 18, 2022
Application GRANTED. Defendant's proposed briefing schedule is
VIA ECF
adopted. Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss by December 9, 2022.
Honorable Lorna G. Schofield
United States District Court Judge Plaintiff may file a response by January 13, 2023, but is not required to
do so. No reply shall be filed unless requested by the Court. The stay of
United States District Court
Southern District of New York the deadline to respond to the Complaint and of discovery remains in
place. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of
500 Pearl Street
compelling circumstances. So Ordered.
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Edris v. City of New York et al.,
22-CV-07095 (LGS)(GWG)

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of
this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.

Your Honor:

Dated: November 21, 2022
New York, New York
I am a Senior Counsel in the Office of the Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York, and attorney assigned to represent defendant City of New York
(“City”).1 City writes to respectfully request an extension of time to December 9, 2022 to file its
motion to dismiss and that Your Honor endorse the briefing schedule set forth herein. The
undersigned attempted to contact pro se plaintiff to obtain his consent at the telephone number
listed for him on the Court docket, however, the undersigned’s attempt to call pro se plaintiff went
straight to the voicemail and the undersigned left pro se plaintiff a message. This is the second
request for an extension of time for defendant to file its motion to dismiss.
By way of background, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he attempted to report to various
police precincts injuries to his anus and items that were stolen from him and/or destroyed but the
police refused to investigate his complaints. ECF No. 1 at pg. 5. Plaintiff alleges that these
incidents occurred in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens and that they have been
ongoing since January 21, 1993. Id.

The NYPD and DHS are non-suable agencies of the City. See Jenkins v. City of N.Y., 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir.
2007) citing Wray v. City of New York, 340 F. Supp. 2d 291, 303 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting N.Y.C. Charter § 396
(“All actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name
of the City of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”))

1

Case 1:22-cv-07095-LGS-GWG Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 2

In the complaint, ECF No. 1 at pg. 6, Plaintiff admits to filing a separate complaint in New
York State Supreme Court related to the same allegations which he also brings herein. Upon
information and belief, this “complaint” was an Order to Show Cause that was dismissed and then
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal that is currently pending. Additional time will allow the City to
continue to investigate the status of plaintiff’s appeal and determine the applicability, if any, to
defendant’s anticipated motion (i.e., whether the Colorado River doctrine is applicable to this
case). 2
Accordingly, the City respectfully requests for the Court to endorse the following briefing
schedule:
-

City’s moving papers due on December 9, 2022;
As previously indicated in Your Honor’s September 15, 2022 Order, plaintiff may file a
response, but is not required to do so;
No Reply shall be filed unless requested by the Court.

Further, the City respectfully requests that discovery continue to be stayed in accordance
with Your Honor’s September 15, 2022 Order. Thank you for your consideration of the instant
application.
Respectfully submitted,

To:

2

/s/ Thomas Lai
Thomas Lai
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division

VIA Mail
Ahmed Samiraly Edris
G.P.O. Box 7737
New York, NY 10116
PRO SE

See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 817–18 (1976)

2