Jackson v. Carter
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-03936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jackson v. Carter, Judge Briccetti denied Jackson’s premature discovery motion without prejudice because Carter had not been served.
Raymond L. Jackson’s discovery requests were denied without prejudice; G.O.R. Carter had not yet been served and had not yet responded to the complaint.
What happened
In Jackson v. Carter, Raymond L. Jackson, representing himself, asked for records and other information about an incident in which he said G.O.R. Carter pepper-sprayed him. Jackson also requested information about complaints against Carter.
The court denied Jackson’s discovery motion without prejudice because Carter had not yet been served and had not had an opportunity to respond to the complaint. The court also told Jackson not to file discovery requests on the docket unless they were needed to resolve a motion or application.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion, and the court said it would mail Jackson a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Carter · No. 7:20-cv-03936
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 14, 2020
Background
Raymond L. Jackson, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, moved for discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His requests sought interview statements, medical records, photographs, and other materials concerning an alleged November 11, 2019 incident at Sing Sing C.F. in which he stated that G.O.R. Carter pepper-sprayed him. Jackson also sought information about Carter’s disciplinary history and complaints by other inmates concerning alleged use of force or verbal abuse.
Jackson separately filed discovery requests on the docket. In a later letter, he stated that a federal marshal had been unable to serve Carter because the marshal was told Carter no longer worked at Sing Sing C.F. Jackson disputed that account and said he had spoken with Carter there on August 2, 2020.
Ruling
The court denied without prejudice Jackson’s discovery motion. It explained that Carter had not yet been served and had not yet had an opportunity to answer, make a motion, or otherwise respond to Jackson’s complaint. The court therefore found Jackson’s discovery requests premature at that time.
The court also directed Jackson not to file discovery requests on the docket unless filing them was necessary to resolve a motion or application. The clerk was instructed to terminate the discovery motion. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. Chambers was directed to mail Jackson a copy of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.