Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2020

Chin v. Squire

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:20-cv-03711
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Chin v. Squire, Judge Halpern ordered the Marshals Service to serve two newly identified defendants and set service and discovery deadlines.

Who this affects

Wayne Chin, the named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service were affected. The defendants must respond to the specified discovery requests, and the Marshals Service was directed to serve Sergeant Ellis and Nurse Lindemann.

What happened

In Chin v. Squire, Wayne Chin, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued correctional officers, a sergeant, and a nurse under a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. His amended complaint identified two defendants previously listed by placeholder names as Sergeant Ellis and Nurse Lindemann.

The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the documents needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Ellis and Lindemann. The court also required the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days of the order and told Chin to report any address change in writing.

Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order of service, applied the prisoner-discovery rule, and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Chin v. Squire · No. 7:20-cv-03711
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Aug. 18, 2020

Background

Wayne Chin, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility when the order was issued, brought this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The defendants named in the amended complaint were correctional officers P.T. Squire, P. Langdon, K.W. Krasnow, J.Y. Benford, and A. Escalera; Sergeant Eckerson; Sergeant Ellis; and Nurse Lindemann.

Ellis and Lindemann had previously been identified only as John/Jane Doe defendants. The Office of the Attorney General identified them in response to an earlier court order, and Chin then filed an amended complaint naming them.

Service of Process

Because Chin had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. The court explained that the usual rule requires service within 90 days after filing, but Chin could not serve the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued. The court therefore extended the service period until 90 days after the summons is issued.

The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Ellis and Lindemann, issue the summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve them. The court also stated that Chin should request an extension if service is not completed within the applicable period.

Discovery and Other Instructions

Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner case. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to the specified standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after the order. Their responses must quote each request word for word. Chin was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

The court entered an order of service and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Chin and arrange for service on Ellis and Lindemann through the U.S. Marshals Service. 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 appeal without paying the filing fee. This order addressed service, discovery, and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the merits of Chin’s civil-rights allegations.

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.