Jackson v. Annucci
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jackson v. Annucci, Judge Halpern ordered service and discovery procedures for Jackson’s civil-rights claims.
Lavogia Jackson and the eight named defendants; the order directs the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service to arrange service and requires the defendants to answer standard discovery requests.
What happened
In Jackson v. Annucci, Lavogia Jackson, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued New York corrections officials and Green Haven Correctional Facility personnel. Jackson alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, retaliation for filing a grievance, and violations during a disciplinary proceeding.
Because the court had allowed Jackson to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, it directed the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the complaint and summonses. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and required defendants to respond to standard discovery requests within 120 days after service.
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued an order of service applying Local Civil Rule 33.2 to the case. The order addressed service and discovery procedures, not whether Jackson’s claims were legally or factually correct.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-02008
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 16, 2020
Background
Lavogia Jackson, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, retaliated against him for filing a grievance, and violated his rights in a disciplinary proceeding. The defendants named in the caption were Anthony J. Annucci, Donald Venetozzi, Michael Royce, Eric Gutwein, D. Deegan, R. Rossi, William Rivera, and R. Dahl.
The court had previously granted Jackson permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The order explained that prisoners must still pay the filing fee over time, even when granted that permission.
Service of Process
Because Jackson was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the usual 90-day service period so that it would run for 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Jackson should request an extension of time.
The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and give the Marshals Service the documents needed to serve the defendants. Jackson 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 to this action. 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 verbatim.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued an order directing service and applying Local Civil Rule 33.2. The order did not decide the merits of Jackson’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.