Artis v. Baez
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-04376
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Artis v. Baez, Judge Seibel ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve defendants in Artis’s excessive-force lawsuit.
Clarence Lee Artis Jr. and the nine named defendants are affected. The Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service were directed to carry out service, and the defendants must respond to the specified discovery requests after service.
What happened
In Artis v. Baez, Clarence Lee Artis Jr. filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that he experienced excessive force while incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility. He had already been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee up front.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could serve Sgt. A. Baez and the other named defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and stated that Artis may request more time if service is not completed.
Judge Cathy Seibel also ordered that a prisoner-discovery rule applies. Within 120 days after service, the defendants must respond to the standard discovery requests and quote each request in their responses. The order addressed service and early case procedures; it did not decide whether Artis’s excessive-force allegations are valid.
The detailed version
- Artis v. Baez · No. 7:24-cv-04376
- Cathy Seibel
- June 25, 2024
Background
Clarence Lee Artis Jr., who is currently incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that he was subjected to excessive force during his incarceration at Otisville Correctional Facility. The defendants are Sgt. A. Baez; C.O. W. Acton; C.O. B. Shell; C.O. D. Goodspeed; C.O. M. Schrammel; C.O. L. Valdez; Lt. D. Scholonas; Sgt. M. Conklin; and Sgt. J. Goin.
In an earlier order dated June 17, 2024, the court allowed Artis to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion explains that prisoners still must pay the full filing fee even when granted that permission.
Service of the lawsuit
Because Artis was allowed to proceed without prepaying the fee, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete the U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The opinion includes service addresses for each defendant at Otisville Correctional Facility.
The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Artis should request an extension of time. The court also instructed Artis to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Discovery and disposition
Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner case. Under that rule, within 120 days after the complaint is served, the defendants must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests identified in the order. Their responses must quote each request verbatim.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue the summonses, arrange delivery of the service materials to the Marshals Service, and mail an information package to Artis. This was an order concerning service and early case procedures. It did not determine the merits of Artis’s excessive-force allegations or enter a ruling for either side on that claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.