Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2020

Santiago v. Anthony Annucci

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:20-cv-04530
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Santiago v. Annucci, Judge Karas dismissed DOCCS, substituted Anthony Annucci, and ordered service on the remaining defendants.

Who this affects

Heraclio Santiago; DOCCS, which was dismissed; Anthony Annucci, Leroy Fields, and Derek Jones, who were designated for service; and the U.S. Marshals Service, which was directed to serve the defendants.

What happened

Heraclio Santiago, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued DOCCS, Leroy Fields, and Derek Jones under a federal civil-rights law. He had permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court dismissed DOCCS and directed the Clerk to replace it in the case caption with Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci for Santiago’s requested court-ordered relief. The court also directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Annucci, Fields, and Jones.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order. The order did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Santiago v. Anthony Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-04530
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Aug. 5, 2020

Background

Heraclio Santiago, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), Superintendent Leroy Fields, and Bureau Chief Derek Jones as defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

DOCCS and Anthony Annucci

The court explained that state agencies generally are not considered legally suable “persons” under § 1983. It also explained that a state official may be sued in an official capacity for prospective, or future-directed, injunctive relief. Because the court understood Santiago to be seeking injunctive relief from DOCCS’s Acting Commissioner, Anthony Annucci, it construed the complaint as asserting claims against Annucci and directed the Clerk to replace DOCCS with Annucci in the caption.

The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses Annucci might raise. It simultaneously dismissed DOCCS from the action.

Service of process

Because Santiago had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Annucci, Fields, and Jones. The Clerk was instructed to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary paperwork.

The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Santiago should request an extension if service is not completed within that period. The court also required Santiago to notify the court in writing of any address change and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered the dismissal of DOCCS and directed that Anthony Annucci replace DOCCS in the caption. The court directed service on Annucci, Fields, and Jones. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order was an initial screening and service order; it did not resolve the merits of Santiago’s constitutional claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.