Reid v. City of New York
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-00644
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Reid v. City of New York, Judge Daniels ordered service of the constitutional-rights lawsuit and required defendants to answer standard discovery requests.
Cedric Reid and the named defendants, including the City of New York, Correction Officer Everett, and the other listed individuals and entities, are affected by the service instructions and discovery requirements.
What happened
Reid v. City of New York is a lawsuit by Cedric Reid, who is incarcerated and represented himself, against the City of New York and several other defendants. He claims under federal civil-rights law that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.
The court had already allowed Reid to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. It asked the City and Correction Officer Everett to waive formal service and directed the court and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the other listed defendants. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued.
Judge Daniels ordered that defendants respond within 120 days after service to the standard discovery requests required by Local Civil Rule 33.2. The order addressed service and early discovery procedures; it did not decide whether Reid’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Reid v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00644
- George Daniels
- Aug. 24, 2020
Background
Cedric Reid, who was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims that government officials violated constitutional rights. The defendants named in the caption include the City of New York; Martha W. King; NYC Health + Hospitals; Patsy Yang; Correction Officer Everett, Shield No. 9257; and other individuals, including Sing Sing Pharmacist Schupak.
The court had previously granted Reid permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The opinion notes that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time even when granted that permission.
Service of Process
The court asked the City of New York and Correction Officer Everett, Shield No. 9257, to waive formal service of the summons. It directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department about the order.
For the other listed defendants, the court held that Reid could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service because he had been allowed to proceed without paying the fee upfront. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. It instructed the Clerk to prepare the required service forms, issue the summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Martha King, New York City Health and Hospitals, Patsy Yang, Allen Riley, Thomas Loughren, Terry Moran, Anthony Annucci, Carl Koenigsmann, Susanna Nayschuler, Dr. Hammer, Osbourne McKay, Michael Washington, Robert Morton, Michael Capra, Razia Ferdous, Veronica Monroe, and Sing Sing Pharmacist Schupak.
The court also directed Reid to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified court-ordered interrogatories and requests for documents. The defendants must serve their responses within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition and Classification
The court ordered the Clerk to mail Reid a copy of the order and an information package, electronically notify the specified New York City agencies, request waiver of service from the City and Correction Officer Everett, and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service for the other listed defendants. It also confirmed that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. This is a procedural order because it addressed service and discovery administration rather than deciding the merits of Reid’s constitutional claims.
The opinion text contains an apparent date discrepancy: the supplied case metadata gives a filing date of August 24, 2020, while the scanned order’s date line appears to read August 24, 2028. The metadata date is used above.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.