Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 17, 2025

Smith v. Halstead

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:24-cv-06855
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Smith v. Halstead, Judge Seibel ordered Marshals service of the amended complaint and required discovery responses from four defendants.

Who this affects

Donnie P. Smith and the five defendants named for service—Kaitlin Menard, Nicholas Gessner, Bryce Sotelo, J. Murray, and Paul Arteta—are affected by the service directives. Gessner, Sotelo, Murray, and Arteta are also subject to the ordered discovery responses.

What happened

In Smith v. Halstead, Donnie P. Smith, who is representing himself and is held at the Orange County Jail, brings claims alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights and other laws. The opinion does not decide whether those claims are valid.

Because Smith was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the complaint. After Smith added five defendants in his Third Amended Complaint, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Kaitlin Menard, Nicholas Gessner, Bryce Sotelo, J. Murray, and Paul Arteta.

Judge Cathy Seibel also required Gessner, Sotelo, Murray, and Arteta to answer specified prisoner-case discovery requests within 120 days after service. The order addressed service and discovery procedures, not the merits of Smith’s claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Smith v. Halstead · No. 7:24-cv-06855
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
July 17, 2025

Background

Donnie P. Smith is representing himself and is currently held at the Orange County Jail. He brings claims alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and state law.

The court had previously allowed Smith to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Smith filed an amended complaint adding defendants and later filed a Second Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2025, he filed a Third Amended Complaint adding Nicholas Gessner, Bryce Sotelo, J. Murray, and Paul Arteta. The opinion also notes that Wellpath LLC’s bankruptcy filing had automatically stayed the case and that the stay was lifted as of May 7, 2025.

Service of Process

Because Smith was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the complaint. The court extended the service period so that service would be due 90 days after the summonses issue, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It stated that Smith should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Kaitlin Menard, Nicholas Gessner, Bryce Sotelo, J. Murray, and Paul Arteta; complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each; and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service so it can serve the Third Amended Complaint.

Discovery Requirement and Disposition

The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires certain defendants in some prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered discovery requests. The court ordered Gessner, Sotelo, Murray, and Arteta to serve responses to the standard discovery requests within 120 days after service, and required them to quote each request verbatim in their responses.

The order grants no merits relief and makes no determination about whether Smith’s claims succeed. It orders the Clerk to issue the summonses, complete the service forms, and provide the documents to the Marshals Service.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.