Acosta Salazar v. Feliciano
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-04116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Acosta Salazar v. Feliciano, Judge Briccetti ordered U.S. Marshals service and prisoner-case discovery for Acosta Salazar’s excessive-force lawsuit.
The order affects Abel Acosta Salazar, Officer Feliciano, Officer Braig, Captain Omess, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. It requires the Marshals Service to serve the defendants and requires the defendants to provide standard discovery responses.
What happened
In Acosta Salazar v. Feliciano, Abel Acosta Salazar, who was incarcerated in the Westchester County Department of Correction, sued three officers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging excessive force. He was representing himself and had already received permission to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents and addresses needed to serve Officer Feliciano, Officer Braig, and Captain Omess. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It also ruled that a local rule requiring standard discovery responses in certain prisoner cases applies, and required the defendants to respond within 120 days after being served.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the June 18, 2020 order. The order directs service and initial discovery; it does not decide whether the alleged excessive force occurred.
The detailed version
- Acosta Salazar v. Feliciano · No. 7:20-cv-04116
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 18, 2020
Background
Abel Acosta Salazar, who was incarcerated in the Westchester County Department of Correction, brought this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He alleged that Officer Feliciano, Officer Braig, and Captain Omess used excessive force against him. On June 15, 2020, the court granted his request to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
Service of the Complaint
Because Acosta Salazar was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court explained that the usual 90-day deadline for serving a complaint could not begin in the ordinary way because Acosta Salazar could not have served the defendants until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued.
The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Acosta Salazar 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 provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to complete service. Acosta Salazar was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court stated that the case 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 respond to specified court-ordered interrogatories and document requests. The defendants must serve responses to those standard discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses. The court noted that the requests are available on the court’s website and that Acosta Salazar could request copies from the Pro Se Intake Unit if he lacked website access.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Acosta Salazar a copy of the order and an information package, arrange the documents and summonses for service by the U.S. Marshals Service, and apply Local Civil Rule 33.2 to the case. The order did not resolve the merits of Acosta Salazar’s excessive-force allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.