Farrow v. Cordez

Background

Justin Farrow, who is incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He alleges, among other things, excessive force and deliberate indifference involving incidents at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The opinion states that the court had previously allowed Farrow to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The operative amended complaint was docketed on May 15, 2024.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Farrow was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to assist with service. The order directed the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms for Correction Officers Clarke, Leslie, Murray, Schepis, and R. Batolotti, and Sergeant Fan.

The amended complaint must be served within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Farrow should request an extension of time. The order also required Farrow to notify the court in writing of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Identification of Unnamed Defendants

The court found that Farrow provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify five unnamed defendants. They are John Does 1 and 2, allegedly involved in a use-of-force incident at the Sing Sing A-block mess hall bridge on April 19, 2021; Area Sergeant John Doe 3, who allegedly photographed Farrow’s injuries and escorted him from the medical clinic to segregated housing; John Doe 4, a nurse allegedly present at the clinic who had Farrow sign a waiver of medical treatment; and John Doe 5, who allegedly served Farrow meals in segregated housing beginning April 23, 2021, during Ramadan.

The order directed the New York State Attorney General, as the attorney for and agent of the department, to determine the identities, badge numbers, and service addresses of those defendants and provide that information to Farrow and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Farrow must file a second amended complaint naming the defendants. That complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and the first amended complaint. The court stated that it would screen the second amended complaint and, if necessary, direct service on the newly identified defendants.

Automatic Discovery

The court stated that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. Under that rule, the defendants must respond to specified interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 120 days after service of the amended complaint. Their responses must quote each discovery request verbatim.

Disposition

This was an order directing the next steps in the case. The court directed service on the named defendants, required identification of the unnamed defendants, and applied the automatic-discovery rule. The opinion did not decide the merits of Farrow’s excessive-force, deliberate-indifference, religious-land-use, or other claims.