Siler v. Monroe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-05794
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Siler v. Monroe, Judge Halpern ordered service, identification of unnamed officers, and standard discovery without deciding the constitutional claims.
Michael D. Siler, the named defendants, Officer Monroe and the unnamed correctional officer, the New York State Attorney General, the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the defendants who must respond to the standard discovery requests.
What happened
In Siler v. Monroe, Michael D. Siler, who is incarcerated, sued correctional officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged retaliation for filing grievances, excessive force, and indifference to his health and safety, claiming violations of the First and Eighth Amendments.
The court had already allowed Siler to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. It directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve Officer J. Walden, Superintendent Leroy Fields, and Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci. It also directed the New York State Attorney General to identify Officer Monroe and the unnamed correctional officer, after which Siler must file an amended complaint naming them.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also applied a local discovery rule requiring defendants to respond to standard prisoner-case requests within 120 days after service. The order addressed service, identification, and discovery; it did not decide whether Siler’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Siler v. Monroe · No. 7:20-cv-05794
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
Michael D. Siler, who was incarcerated at Southport Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for constitutional violations. He alleged that defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances, used excessive force, and acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety, in violation of the First and Eighth Amendments. The alleged events occurred while he was confined at Fishkill Correctional Facility.
The court had previously granted Siler permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court explained that prisoners granted this permission must still pay the filing fee over time under the applicable statute.
Service on Named Defendants
Because Siler was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the complaint and summonses. The usual 90-day service period was extended: Siler’s deadline to serve defendants was set at 90 days after summonses were issued. The court stated that, if service was not completed by then, Siler should request an extension.
The Clerk was directed to complete service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for Officer J. Walden, Superintendent Leroy Fields, and Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Anthony J. Annucci. Siler was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action.
Identifying Officer Monroe and the John Doe Defendant
The court found that Siler had provided enough information for the New York State Attorney General to identify Officer Monroe and the unnamed correctional officer involved in the alleged incidents. The court ordered the Attorney General to determine their identities and service addresses and provide that information to Siler and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving that information, Siler was ordered to file an amended complaint using the full names of Officer Monroe and the unnamed officer. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint later and, if necessary, issue further service instructions.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied to the action. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified court-ordered interrogatories and document requests. The defendants were ordered to serve responses to those standard requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and to quote each request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition
The order directed the Clerk to mail Siler a copy of the order and an information package, complete the service forms for Walden, Fields, and Annucci, issue summonses, provide the service materials to the Marshals Service, and send the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General. Judge Philip M. Halpern did not decide the merits of Siler’s First or Eighth Amendment allegations in this order.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.