Griffin v. Martuscello
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-09810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Griffin v. Martuscello, Judge Roman ordered renewed service on five defendants and required standard discovery responses in Griffin’s civil-rights case.
Robert A. Griffin; defendants Captain C. Nixon, Sergeant Mandel, Officer J.W. York, Officer Michelle Oscar, and Officer Kristin A. Bailey; the Clerk of Court; and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Griffin v. Martuscello, Robert A. Griffin, who is incarcerated and representing himself, alleges under a federal civil-rights law that the defendants issued a false misbehavior report and violated his rights during the resulting disciplinary hearing. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue new summonses and service forms for Captain C. Nixon, Sergeant Mandel, Officer J.W. York, Officer Michelle Oscar, and Officer Kristin A. Bailey, and to send the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also ruled that a local rule requiring responses to standard discovery requests applies and required defendants to respond within 120 days. Griffin must notify the court if his address changes.
Judge Nelson S. Roman issued this supplemental service order on April 23, 2025. The order addressed service and discovery procedures; it did not decide whether Griffin’s allegations were legally or factually correct.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Martuscello · No. 7:23-cv-09810
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
Robert A. Griffin, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants issued him a false misbehavior report and violated his rights during the disciplinary hearing that followed. The defendants named in the opinion are Daniel Martuscello, Captain C. Nixon, Sergeant Mandel, Officer J.W. York, Officer Michelle Oscar, and Kristin A. Bailey.
The court had previously granted Griffin permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In July 2024, the U.S. Marshals Service attempted to serve Nixon, Mandel, York, Oscar, and Bailey, but service was not completed within the applicable 90-day period.
Service Order
Because Griffin was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete new U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms, issue new summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Nixon, Mandel, York, Oscar, and Bailey.
The order states that if service is not completed within 90 days after the new summonses are issued, Griffin should request more time. It also states that Griffin 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. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days of the order, and their responses must quote each request verbatim. The conclusion states that the rule’s period will run from the date the defendants are served.
Disposition and Scope
The court ordered renewed service and applied Local Civil Rule 33.2. This was a procedural order concerning service of process and discovery. The opinion did not resolve the merits of Griffin’s allegations about the misbehavior report or disciplinary hearing.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.