| Journalist
Arrested Covering Protest Pursuing Failure
to Train Claim Settles and Dismisses
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Sept 24 – Journalist Michael
Nigro was arrested while
covering a demonstration in
New York City on March 19,
2016. He sued.
On January
14, U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York Judge Jesse M. Furman
held a proceeding. Inner City
Press covered it.
The case was
filed in March 2019. Judge
Furman said the parts of it
that remain about about
"failure to train." 2020 WL
5503539.
The
complaint states that "this
false arrest would never have
occurred but for the decision
made by the City of New York
to not properly train NYPD
officers on the First
Amendment rights of
media."
Depositions are -
or were - due by September 10.
On June 18 -
Juneteenth, observed, with
most of the SDNY closed - into
the docket at 8 pm was a
proposed order for the
unsealing of the records of
arrests of two non-party
individuals who were arrested
during [sic] on or about March
19, 2106 [sic] at the protest
at issue."
An accompanying
letter says the records -
which it says only the parties
and not the press or public -
are sought in order to support
plaintiff's claims including
his allegations of retaliatory
arrest and his claim that
Defendant has failed to train
NYPD officers with regard to
the First Amendment rights of
member of the media covering
protests and other police
activity."
On September 14,
2021 Judge Furman held another
proceeding, in the run up to a
September 20 settlement
conference before the assigned
Magistrate Judge, Stewart D.
Aaron. There are disputes
about discovery, Devenpeck
data and the whereabouts of
former NYPD spokesman Paul
Browne.
Now on September
24, a notice about settlement,
but without the basis: "ORDER
OF DISMISSAL: The Court having
been advised by Magistrate
Judge Aaron that all claims
asserted herein have been
settled, it is ORDERED that
the above-entitled action be
and is hereby DISMISSED and
discontinued without costs,
and without prejudice to the
right to reopen the action
within sixty days of the date
of this Order if the
settlement is not consummated.
To be clear, any application
to reopen must be filed by the
aforementioned deadline; any
application to reopen filed
thereafter may be denied
solely on that basis. Further,
requests to extend the
deadline to reopen are
unlikely to be granted. If the
parties wish for the Court to
retain jurisdiction for the
purposes of enforcing any
settlement agreement, they
must submit the settlement
agreement to the Court by the
deadline to reopen to be "so
ordered" by the Court. Per
Paragraph 4(B) of the Court's
Individual Rules and Practices
for Civil Cases, unless the
Court orders otherwise, the
Court will not retain
jurisdiction to enforce a
settlement agreement unless it
is made part of the public
record. Any pending motions
are moot. All conferences are
canceled. The Clerk of Court
is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge
Jesse M. Furman on
9/24/2021)." So, on what
basis?
Inner City Press,
with its own journalistic experience
with untrained / unlawful
security in New York City
(albeit in international
territory) hopes to cover this
case more closely.
The case is Nigro
v. City Of New York et al.,
19-cv-2369 (Furman)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
