Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 1, 2020

Terry v. Stamford

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:20-cv-03847
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
11
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Terry v. Stamford, Judge Furman ordered service of Duwayne L. Terry’s lawsuit and identification of unnamed defendants, without deciding his parole claim.

Who this affects

Duwayne L. Terry; the six named defendants identified for service; the unnamed parole officials whom the New York Attorney General’s Office must identify; the Clerk of Court; the U.S. Marshals Service; and the New York Attorney General’s Office.

What happened

In Terry v. Stamford, Duwayne L. Terry, who was incarcerated, sued under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that parole officials arbitrarily denied his release. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

The court directed the Clerk’s Office and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve six named defendants. It also ordered the New York Attorney General’s Office to identify unnamed parole officials whom Terry said failed to respond to his grievance, after which Terry must file an amended complaint naming them.

Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide whether Terry was improperly denied parole. He ordered service, required steps for identifying the unnamed defendants, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Terry v. Stamford · No. 1:20-cv-03847
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
July 1, 2020

Background

Duwayne L. Terry, who was incarcerated at Washington Correctional Facility, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants arbitrarily denied his release to parole. The court had previously granted Terry permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The caption names the parole-board defendant as Tina Stamford. The opinion states that the correct name is Tina Stanford. The court identified the named defendants for service as Tina Stanford, Crangle, Demosthenes, Shapiro, Shelley Mallozzi, and Karen Bellamy. The opinion describes them as parole officials, an inmate grievance director, and a central-office review director.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Terry was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to prepare U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the six named defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Terry should ask for more time if service is not completed within that period.

The court also required Terry to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Unnamed Defendants

Terry identified unnamed parole officials in the Bronx I Area Office who allegedly failed to respond to his grievance. The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York State Attorney General’s Office to identify them. It ordered that office to provide the identities and service addresses to Terry and the court within 60 days.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Terry must file an amended complaint naming the previously unnamed defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct service on the newly named defendants.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Terry the order and an information package, prepare service forms for the named defendants, and send the order and complaint to the New York Attorney General’s Office. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from this order.

This order addressed service and identification of defendants. It did not decide whether Terry was entitled to parole or whether the defendants violated his rights.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-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.