Starkes v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-07270
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Starkes v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti dismissed claims against Annucci but ordered service and discovery responses from three other defendants.
Starkes’s claims against Anthony J. Annucci were dismissed. Claims against Correction Officers Byrd, Rivera, and Nieves remained subject to service, and those defendants were required to respond to specified discovery requests.
What happened
Quentin Starkes, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Anthony J. Annucci and three correction officers, alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights and asserting state-law claims. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the prisoner-screening requirements.
The court dismissed Starkes’s claims against Annucci because the amended complaint alleged no facts about Annucci’s involvement. The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Correction Officers Byrd, Rivera, and Nieves.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also directed those three defendants to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. The court denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Starkes v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-07270
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
Quentin Starkes, who was incarcerated at the time, filed this action without a lawyer. The court understood his amended complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law based on alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights. The defendants were Anthony J. Annucci, the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and Correction Officers Byrd, Rivera, and Nieves.
The court had previously allowed Starkes to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront and gave him permission to amend his complaint to name only people personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.
Claims Against Annucci
The court dismissed Starkes’s claims against Annucci under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim. The amended complaint again named Annucci but alleged no facts about him. The court also noted that the earlier order had explained that the alleged events occurred at the Westchester County Jail and that Annucci did not oversee that facility.
Service and Discovery
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Byrd, Rivera, and Nieves. Because Starkes was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses were issued.
The court also determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified discovery requests. Byrd, Rivera, and Nieves were each directed to serve responses within 120 days after service and to quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition
The court dismissed Starkes’s claims against Anthony J. Annucci. It directed service on Byrd, Rivera, and Nieves and directed those defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.