Caines v. Pacheco

Background

Kamieo Caines, who was incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted claims based on events that allegedly occurred on July 6, 2019, at Downstate Correctional Facility. The defendants named in the caption were Sergeant Pacheco; Correction Officers Carlstrom, Mitchell, Johnson, and two officers identified as John Doe. The opinion does not describe the underlying alleged conduct or decide whether Caines’s claims are legally valid.

The court had previously granted Caines permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Under the prisoner-screening statutes cited by the court, a complaint may be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or is within a court that lacks authority to hear it. The order does not state that the court dismissed any claim under those standards.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Caines was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Sergeant Pacheco and Correction Officers Carlstrom, Mitchell, and Johnson. The clerk was directed to prepare the required service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Caines should request an extension. Caines must also notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Identifying the John Doe Defendants

The court found that Caines had provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the two unnamed officers involved in the July 6, 2019 incident. The court therefore directed the New York State Attorney General, identified as counsel and agent for that department, to determine the officers’ identities and service addresses within 60 days.

The Attorney General was also directed to provide the full names and shield numbers of Correction Officers Johnson, Mitchell, Carlstrom, and Pacheco if needed for service. Within 30 days after receiving the identifying information, Caines must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The order states that the amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue further service instructions.

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 after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The court issued an order directing service and identification of unnamed defendants. It did not decide the merits of Caines’s claims. The court directed the clerk to mail the order and an information package to Caines and to send the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General. It certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.