Diaz v. Bennett

Background

Pedro Diaz filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law. He seeks damages and names Stacy Bennett, identified as Sullivan’s Superintendent; Morrow, identified as a DOCCS administrative disciplinary Hearing Officer; and Anthony J. Annucci, identified as the former Acting Commissioner of DOCCS. Diaz is incarcerated, is proceeding without a lawyer, and had previously been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion does not describe the specific constitutional violations alleged.

Service of the Complaint

The court held that, because Diaz was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for each defendant, complete a USM-285 service form for each defendant, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

The court stated that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Diaz should request an extension of time. It also required Diaz to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Discovery Requirement

The court determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires certain defendants in prisoner cases to respond to specified discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Within 120 days after service, each defendant must respond and quote each discovery request verbatim.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed service on Bennett, Morrow, and Annucci; directed the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare the service forms; directed the Marshals Service to receive the documents needed for service; and required each defendant to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days after service. The order did not resolve the merits of Diaz’s constitutional claims.