Christian Mercado, also known as Debra Mercad v. Correctional Officer Haidome, Shield #1306

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-02784
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTIAN MERCADO, also known as DEBRA MERCAD, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 24 Civ. 2784 (AT) (SLC) Plaintiff, ORDER -v-

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAIDOME, Shield #1306,

Defendant.

SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s submission at Dkt. No. 39 (the “Original Submission”), followed by her supplemental submission at Dkt. No. 51 (the “Supplemental Submission”, together, the “Submissions”). Pursuant to the Court’s Order at Dkt. No. 40, although Plaintiff labeled her Original Submission as a “Notice of Motion,” the Court construed it as Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30 (“Defendant’s Motion”)), rather than a cross-motion because the Original Submission did not comply with Local Rule 56.1. (Dkt. No. 40). Similarly, in her Supplemental Submission, Plaintiff includes a “Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment” in which she refers to a “Local Rule 56.1 Statement[;] the Declaration of Christian Mercado, September 2, 2025[,] and the exhibits annexed thereo[;] [and] the memorandum of law in support of plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment dated September 2, 2025[.]” (Dkt. No. 41 at 3). Plaintiff did not submit, however, a Rule 56.1 Statement, a declaration, or a memorandum of law. Further, in her Supplemental Submission, Plaintiff asks the Court to “grant [her] [m]otion to oppose [Defendant’s] motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 2). Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s Supplemental Submission does not comply with Local Rule 56.1 but rather appears to respond to Defendant’s Motion, the Court also construes Plaintiff’s Supplemental Submission at Dkt. No. 41 as a supplemental opposition to Defendant’s Motion. The Court notes that it is not necessary for Plaintiff to file any cross-motion to Defendant’s Motion, because, given her pro se status, the Court will consider her Submissions with “special solicitude,” Graham v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 1988), and will construe the factual record “in the light most favorable to” her as the nonmovant. Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018). Given Plaintiff's Supplemental Submission, the Court sua sponte EXTENDS Defendant’s deadline to file his reply in further support of the Motion from October 3, 2025 up to and including October 10, 2025.

Dated: New York, New York September 15, 2025 SO ORDERED.

GARAH L. CANE United States Magistrate Judge