Branch v. Annucci
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-07968
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Branch v. Annucci, Judge Nathan ordered service, notified Clarkson class counsel, and required a response about representation.
Walter Branch, the four named defendants, Clarkson class counsel, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Branch v. Annucci concerns Walter Branch’s application alleging a violation of a consent decree about treatment of prisoners with sensory impairments in New York’s corrections system. Branch is incarcerated and is representing himself.
The court directed the Clerk to send the order to counsel for the Clarkson class and required that counsel tell the court within 30 days whether they would represent Branch. Because Branch was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court also ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants and extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order of service. The order did not decide whether Branch’s allegations were valid; it directed the case to proceed with notice to possible class counsel and service on the named defendants.
The detailed version
- Branch v. Annucci · No. 1:20-cv-07968
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
Walter Branch, who is incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility, filed an application alleging a violation of the consent decree in a prior related proceeding concerning the treatment of prisoners with sensory impairments in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The opinion states that Branch was proceeding without a lawyer and that an earlier order granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Notice to Class Counsel
A 2011 order in the prior related proceeding required the court to notify class counsel when a formal complaint alleging violations of the consent decree was filed. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to mail this order to class counsel. It also directed class counsel to notify the court within 30 days after receiving the order whether they intended to enter an appearance—formally become counsel—for Branch in this action.
Service of Process
Because Branch was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summons was issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It directed the Clerk to prepare service forms, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, ADA Coordinator Na-Kia Walton, and Supervisors Gibson and Lewis.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order of service. The Clerk was directed to send the order and an information package to Branch, send it to Clarkson class counsel, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service. Branch was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change. The opinion does not decide the merits of Branch’s alleged consent-decree violation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.