Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 4, 2020

Fernandez v. Bourhill

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-03404
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Fernandez v. Bourhill, Judge Briccetti ordered service and discovery steps in Fernandez’s civil-rights assault case.

Who this affects

Jeffrey Fernandez and Correction Officer D. Bourhill; the order also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take specified actions.

What happened

Fernandez v. Bourhill concerns Jeffrey Fernandez’s pro se civil-rights case against Correction Officer D. Bourhill. Fernandez, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, alleges that Bourhill assaulted him and later harassed him in retaliation for a grievance.

The court had allowed Fernandez to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because the U.S. Marshals Service must serve defendants in such cases, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the Clerk to issue the summons, complete the service paperwork, and send the materials to the Marshals Service. The order also required Bourhill to respond to standard prisoner-case discovery requests within 120 days and required Fernandez to notify the court of any address change.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fernandez v. Bourhill · No. 7:20-cv-03404
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
June 4, 2020

Background

Jeffrey Fernandez filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Correction Officer D. Bourhill assaulted him. Fernandez later submitted a letter stating that Bourhill was harassing him in retaliation for Fernandez’s grievance about the alleged assault. The court treated that letter as a supplement to the complaint. Fernandez was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and had already been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service of Process

Because Fernandez was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Bourhill. The court explained that Fernandez could not have served the summons and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. It therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. The court stated that Fernandez should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The Clerk of Court was directed to issue the summons, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Bourhill’s address, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Fernandez a copy of the order and an information package.

Discovery and Other Requirements

The court stated that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to court-ordered standard discovery requests. Bourhill was ordered to serve responses to those requests within 120 days of the order and to quote each request verbatim in the response.

Fernandez was required to notify the court in writing if his address changes. The court warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

This was an order concerning service, discovery, and case administration. The court did not decide whether Bourhill assaulted Fernandez or retaliated against him. The court directed the Clerk and the Marshals Service to carry out service and imposed the stated discovery and address-notification requirements.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.