Cicio v. Royce

Background

Terry Cicio, who was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility when the order was issued, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The defendants are Mark Royce, D. Mazzella, Krashaw, Benford, Russo, Henn, Rodriguez, Amipach, Johaneman, Clausen, Borum, Ajikobi, Stanaway, and Alverez, in the roles identified in the caption.

By an order dated November 21, 2019, the court had allowed Cicio to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. Because he was proceeding under that status, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

Service of Process

The court extended the usual deadline for serving the complaint. It ruled that service was due 90 days after the summons was issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed, because Cicio could not have served the papers before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses to be issued. The court stated that if service was not completed within that period, Cicio should request an extension of time.

The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and deliver the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. The order also required Cicio to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the court could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.

Discovery

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants were ordered to serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests and to quote each request word for word in their responses.

The discussion states that the responses were due within 120 days after service of the complaint. The conclusion states that they were due within 120 days after the date of the order. The order did not resolve Cicio’s First, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel issued an order directing service of the complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service and applying Local Civil Rule 33.2 to the action. This was an administrative and procedural order; it did not decide the merits of Cicio’s claims.