Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Evans v. Murphy

United States District Court, W.D. New York

February 1, 2017

Shawn Evans, 11-A-0681, Plaintiff,
v.
Officer P. Murphy et al., Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Hugh B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

         Pro se plaintiff Shawn Evans (“Evans”) filed an amended complaint on May 10, 2012 and a supplement on August 22, 2012, both under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 9.) Evans alleges a verbal threat of assault on December 31, 2011 to deter him from filing administrative grievances. Evans alleges an actual assault on January 13, 2012 and retaliation for a grievance having been filed. Following discovery and various pretrial motion practice, the Court noted that discovery ended and that the case was ready for trial. (Dkt. No. 82.)

         Since the Court deemed the case ready for trial, two sets of events have occurred. First, defendants asked District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, in court and by motion, for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 103-05.) That matter will run its course before Judge Vilardo. Second, Evans filed a blizzard of 11 motions seeking a wide variety of relief including extensions, additional discovery, and prospective or injunctive relief. (Dkt. Nos. 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130.) For the sake of clearing the docket of any matters not related to defendants' request for a second summary-judgment motion, the Court writes now to address each of Evans's motions.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion for General Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 117)

         This motion, written more or less in letter format, is one page long. Evans generally requests an “extension to file a response to any outstanding motion that's pending in front of you.” (Dkt. No. 117 at 1.) Since this motion does not refer to any specific motion actually pending, the Court has nothing to decide here. The Court accordingly denies the motion but without prejudice to seek appropriate extensions to address any specific matters that will remain pending before Judge Vilardo after this writing.

         B. Motion for a Conference Under Rule 59 (Dkt. No. 119)

         In this three-page motion, Evans invokes Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and requests a conference “in regard to this matter be[ing] resolved.” (Dkt. No. 119 at 2.) Rule 59 concerns requests for new trials and requests to alter or to amend judgments. No trial or judgment has occurred yet in this case, making Rule 59 inapplicable. Judge Vilardo can schedule future conferences as he sees fit with respect to trial preparation or the pending defense request for a second summary-judgment motion. Without any other reason to schedule a status conference at this time, the Court denies the motion.

         C. Motion for Extension and for Resent Initial Disclosures (Dkt. No. 120)

         Like the previous motion, this motion from Evans also spans three pages. What Evans seeks in this motion is not clear. There is a mention of responding “to the motion for summary judgment”; there is no motion for summary judgment pending, though Evans might be referring to the defense request for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment. The motion also contains references to reinstating an unspecified motion; compelling unspecified discovery; obtaining an extension for time to respond “to any outstanding motions in front of your court”; and obtaining additional copies of defendants' initial disclosures because the Assistant Attorneys General who worked on the case up to that point instructed the Elmira Correctional Facility to destroy Evans's legal papers. Even more confusing is that Evans already has responded to the defense motion for permission to file a second summary-judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 108.) The only meaningful part of Evans's motion is the reference to initial disclosures. If Evans wants additional copies of the disclosures that were filed, or of any other item in the docket, then he may write to the Clerk of the Court to request copies of specific docket items. The rest of the motion is meritless. The Court accordingly denies the motion.

         D. Motion for a Conference for Corruption Explanation (Dkt. No. 121)

         The only substance in this motion appears in one sentence. Evans seeks a conference “for this corruption with the facility creating fraudulent documents and defrauding the State of New York and doing a lot of unconstitutional misconduct to proceed justice.” [sic] (Dkt. No. 121 at 2.) The Court denies this frivolous motion without further comment.

         E. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.