Washington v. Fitzpatrick
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Washington v. Fitzpatrick, Judge Briccetti ordered U.S. Marshals service and discovery procedures for Washington’s civil-rights lawsuit.
Charles E. Washington, the five correctional defendants named for service, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Charles E. Washington, who was incarcerated at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, brought Washington v. Fitzpatrick under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that correctional personnel violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility. He represented himself and received permission to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms and paperwork so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve Correctional Officer T. Fitzpatrick, Correctional Officer K.B. Sain Clair, Sergeant Sheridan, Lieutenant Jordan, and Colonel Sipple. The court extended Washington’s service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and required him to notify the court if his address changes.
Judge Briccetti also ruled that a local prisoner-discovery rule applies. The defendants must respond to the standard discovery requests within 120 days after the complaint is served and must quote each request in their responses. The order did not decide whether Washington’s underlying allegations were correct.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Fitzpatrick · No. 7:20-cv-00911
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 19, 2020
Background
Charles E. Washington brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain violations of constitutional rights by state officials. The opinion states that Washington was incarcerated at Shawangunk Correctional Facility and alleged that the defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility. He was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
Service of the Complaint
Because Washington received that permission, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. The court explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin in the ordinary way because Washington could not serve the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons issued. The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant and to provide the Marshals Service with the summons and other necessary paperwork. The defendants identified for service were Correctional Officer T. Fitzpatrick, Correctional Officer K.B. Sain Clair, Sergeant Sheridan, Lieutenant Jordan, and Colonel Sipple. Washington was required to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court stated that the action could be dismissed 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 must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint, and their responses must quote each request word for word.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Washington a copy of the order and an information package, complete the service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. It also ordered that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies and imposed the 120-day response deadline. This was an order concerning service and discovery; it did not resolve the merits of Washington’s civil-rights allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.