Drew v. City of New York

Background

Keith Drew, currently incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility, brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for alleged violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. Drew alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island.

The defendants named in the caption included the City of New York; New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; certain medical personnel; the New York City Department of Correction; and identified Department of Correction captains and officers. The court had previously granted Drew permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The order noted that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time, even when granted that permission.

Service of Process

For the City of New York, the Department of Correction, and the identified Department of Correction captains and officers, the Clerk was directed to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. The court requested that those defendants waive service of summons.

For New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Dr. Shiblee, and Dr. Latunji, the court stated that Drew could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service because he had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees. The Clerk was instructed to complete the required U.S. Marshals forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.

The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Drew should request an extension. Drew was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court stated that it could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.

Discovery

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified, court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants were ordered to serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and to quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The court entered an order directing service-related actions and applying Local Civil Rule 33.2. It did not decide the merits of Drew’s constitutional claims. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 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.