Thomas v. Walker
1:19-cv-07980
S.D.N.Y.Dec 5, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff William Thomas filed a complaint alleging excessive force and denial of medical care during a transfer from Rikers Island on or about Feb. 14, 2018, after a recent medical operation.
- Plaintiff claims a security team forcibly placed him on a transfer bus, punching and kicking him, then placed him on a stretcher in intake where medical requests were largely ignored.
- Service/pleading posture: Captain Shawntay Nichols and Acting Warden Sharlisa Walker waived service; Dr. Raul Ramos was served; answers due in December 2019.
- The NYC Law Department learned that the Department of Corrections (DOC) is conducting a parallel investigation into the same allegations.
- The City requests a stay of the federal action until 30 days after DOC’s investigation concludes because GML §50-k requires the Corporation Counsel to decide whether employees acted within scope before assuming representation, and the pending investigation limits communications with subjects and access to investigatory materials.
- The City also cites law-enforcement and deliberative-process privileges that, while the investigation is pending, restrict disclosure of documents/recordings and would impair the City’s ability to defend, prepare discovery, and resolve representation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal case should be stayed pending DOC investigation | Thomas seeks to proceed with his claims now to obtain relief and discovery | City seeks a stay until 30 days after DOC concludes to protect investigatory integrity and resolve representation under GML §50-k | Request for stay only; no court ruling in this filing |
| Whether Corporation Counsel must resolve representation under N.Y. Gen. Mun. L. §50-k before representing DOC employees | Thomas implicitly favors prompt litigation and representation so case can move forward | City argues §50-k requires determining scope-of-employment and allows withholding representation/indemnification until disciplinary proceedings resolve | City states §50-k bars immediate representation; court has not ruled here |
| Whether investigatory materials are discoverable during the DOC probe (law enforcement & deliberative-process privileges) | Thomas would argue he needs access to documents/recordings to prosecute claims | City contends law-enforcement privilege and deliberative-process privilege protect DOC materials during the investigation, limiting discovery | City asserts privileges; no judicial determination in this submission |
| Whether plaintiff will be prejudiced by a stay | Thomas would argue delay harms his ability to pursue relief and preserve evidence/witness testimony | City contends prejudice is minimal because DOC is actively investigating and stay will streamline later discovery | City claims minimal prejudice; court has not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercurio v. New York, 758 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (explains conflict-of-interest limits on municipal counsel representing employees when city alleges misconduct)
- In re Dep’t of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d 481 (2d Cir. 1988) (discusses law-enforcement privilege and investigatory confidentiality)
- Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Dep’t of Justice, 411 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2005) (describes the deliberative-process privilege for pre-decisional, deliberative documents)