Diaz v. Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections
- Clarke
- 7:24-cv-09578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Diaz v. Commissioner, Judge Clarke ordered service and discovery procedures in John Diaz’s federal civil-rights failure-to-protect case.
John Diaz, the six named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order also provides Diaz information about a private limited legal-assistance project.
What happened
John Diaz, representing himself, sued the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections, Sing Sing officials, Sergeant Martinez, and Officers J. Vazquez and D. Mowatt. He alleges that the defendants failed to protect him during his incarceration at Sing Sing from November 29 through December 14, 2021. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the six defendants. If service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Diaz should ask for more time. The court also ruled that a local prisoner-case discovery rule applies, requiring the defendants to respond to specified interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint.
Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke also sent Diaz information about the City Bar Justice Center’s limited legal-assistance project and directed the Clerk to mail him the order and information package. This order arranged service and case procedures; it did not decide whether the defendants failed to protect Diaz.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections · No. 7:24-cv-09578
- Clarke
- Jan. 2, 2025
Background
John Diaz, who is incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against persons acting under state law. He alleges that, while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility between November 29, 2021, and December 14, 2021, the defendants failed to protect him. The defendants are the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections, the Sing Sing Superintendent, the Sing Sing Deputy Superintendent for Security, Sergeant Martinez, Corrections Officer J. Vazquez, and Officer D. Mowatt. The court had previously granted Diaz permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Order of Service
Because Diaz was permitted to proceed without advance payment of fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on each defendant. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. If the complaint is not served within that period, Diaz should request an extension of time. The order also states that Diaz must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to the specified prisoner-case interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint. The responses must quote each request verbatim. The order states that Diaz may request copies of the discovery requests from the Pro Se Intake Unit if he cannot access them online.
Legal Assistance and Disposition
The court informed Diaz that he may seek limited legal advice and assistance from the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project. The order explained that the project is a private organization, is not part of the court, and cannot file documents for the court. The court directed the Clerk to mail Diaz a copy of the order and an information package, and directed the Clerk to issue summonses and arrange service through the Marshals Service. The order did not decide the merits of Diaz’s failure-to-protect allegations.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.