Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 14, 2020

Marcus v. Annucci

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:20-cv-06234
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureSection 1983DiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Marcus v. Annucci, Judge Halpern added Gutwein, ordered service, and applied the discovery rule.

Who this affects

Anthony Marcus, the defendants named in the order, Eric Gutwein, Jamie LaManna, the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the defendants’ discovery obligations.

What happened

In Marcus v. Annucci, Anthony Marcus, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, brought a civil-rights case without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against officials for constitutional violations. He alleges that the defendants denied him due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

The court found that Marcus intended to sue Hearing Officer Eric Gutwein even though Gutwein was not listed in the case caption. It directed the Clerk of Court to add Gutwein as a defendant and corrected the docket to identify Jamie LaManna, rather than L. Lamanna, as a defendant. The court also arranged for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants and extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued.

Judge Halpern ordered the Clerk to issue the summonses and service paperwork, directed defendants to respond to the required prisoner discovery requests within 120 days after service, and applied Local Civil Rule 33.2. The order did not decide whether Marcus was right about the alleged denial of due process.

The detailed version

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

Case
Marcus v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-06234
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Sept. 14, 2020

Background

Anthony Marcus, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleges that the defendants denied him due process in a Tier III prison disciplinary proceeding. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The complaint referred to Hearing Officer Eric Gutwein as a defendant in its body but did not name him in the caption. The complaint also identified a defendant as “L. Lamanna,” although the court determined that Marcus clearly intended to sue Jamie LaManna, the former superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility.

Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to add Eric Gutwein as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The addition was without prejudice to any defenses Gutwein might assert.

Because Marcus had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court instructed the Clerk to complete service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Anthony J. Annucci, Donald Venettozzi, Jamie LaManna, L. Malave, and Eric Gutwein.

The court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Marcus must ask for an extension if service is not completed within that period. Marcus must also notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.

Discovery

The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for documents. Defendants must serve their responses within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The order directed the Clerk to mail Marcus a copy of the order and an information package, add Gutwein as a defendant, correct the docket to identify Jamie LaManna, prepare the service materials, issue summonses, and deliver the documents to the Marshals Service. It also confirmed that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide the merits of Marcus’s due-process allegations.

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.