Kruppenbacher v. Griffin
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-00108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Kruppenbacher v. Griffin, Judge Seibel ordered service, discovery responses, and identification of unnamed defendants in Joseph Kruppenbacher’s prisoner lawsuit.
Joseph Kruppenbacher, the identified defendants, the unnamed correctional defendants, the New York Attorney General, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Kruppenbacher v. Griffin involves Joseph Kruppenbacher, who is incarcerated and is representing himself in a lawsuit seeking damages and declaratory relief under federal civil-rights law and state law. He sued Anthony J. Annucci and current and former staff members of Green Haven Correctional Facility, including identified and unidentified defendants.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and have the U.S. Marshals Service serve the identified defendants. It also required those defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. The New York Attorney General must identify the unnamed defendants, including their badge numbers and service addresses, within 60 days; Kruppenbacher must then file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days.
Judge Cathy Seibel also extended the service period for the identified defendants, directed the court to screen any amended complaint, and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from this order. The order did not decide whether Kruppenbacher’s underlying claims were legally or factually valid.
The detailed version
- Kruppenbacher v. Griffin · No. 7:20-cv-00108
- Cathy Seibel
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
Joseph Kruppenbacher, who was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain claims against state actors, and state law. He sought damages and declaratory relief. The defendants included Anthony J. Annucci, identified current and former staff members of Green Haven Correctional Facility, and unidentified correctional staff. The court had already granted Kruppenbacher permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, although prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time under federal law.
Service on identified defendants
Because Kruppenbacher was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Annucci, Thomas R. Griffin, Donald Wilkens, Laura Stanaway, Dr. Lester Silver, Keith J. Sposato, and Richard Smith II. The Clerk of Court was ordered to prepare the required service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service.
The court extended the deadline for serving those defendants until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that, if service did not occur within that period, Kruppenbacher should request an extension of time.
Discovery requirement
The court determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified interrogatories and requests for documents. The identified defendants were ordered to serve responses within 120 days after service of the complaint and to quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.
Identifying unnamed defendants
The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the unnamed defendants. The opinion described them as a correctional sergeant and correctional officers assigned to the Green Haven Correctional Facility administrative building on July 21, 2017, who were with Richard Smith and Kruppenbacher before Kruppenbacher attended an attorney visit.
The Attorney General of the State of New York was ordered to determine the unnamed defendants’ identities and badge numbers and provide their service addresses to Kruppenbacher and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Kruppenbacher was ordered to file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and that the court would screen it and, if necessary, issue further service instructions.
Disposition
This was an order of service and case administration, not a decision on the merits of Kruppenbacher’s claims. The court ordered service on the identified defendants, ordered their compliance with Local Civil Rule 33.2, required the Attorney General to identify the unnamed defendants, and provided an amended-complaint process. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal from this order. Judge Cathy Seibel signed the order.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.