Petties v. Smalls
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-04350
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Petties v. Richardson, Judge Carter ordered help identifying a correction officer in a pro se constitutional-rights case, without deciding the claims.
The order directly affects Timothy Derome Petties, who receives assistance identifying a defendant, and Correction Officer Richardson, whose identity and service address must be determined. The New York City Law Department must provide the information to the court and Petties.
What happened
In Petties v. Judge D. Riviezzo and C.O. Richardson, Timothy Derome Petties brought a self-represented case under a federal civil-rights law, claiming that defendants violated his constitutional rights. He alleged that Correction Officer Richardson allowed another inmate to assault him at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island on March 22, 2020.
A request to have Richardson waive service of the lawsuit was returned because “Richardson” is a common name. The court found that Petties had provided enough information for the New York City Department of Correction to identify Richardson and ordered the New York City Law Department to provide Richardson’s full name, badge number, and service address within 60 days.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued the order on October 30, 2020. The order addressed identifying and serving a defendant; it did not decide whether Petties’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Petties v. Smalls · No. 1:20-cv-04350
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 30, 2020
Background
Timothy Derome Petties, Esq., who was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The opinion states that the amended complaint was the operative pleading and that Petties alleged Correction Officer Richardson was on duty in housing area D3 on the morning of March 22, 2020, and allowed another inmate to assault him.
The court had previously allowed Petties to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset. The court later requested that Correction Officer Richardson waive service of the summons, but the request was returned unexecuted because “Richardson” is a common name.
Court’s Action
Relying on a Second Circuit decision stating that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s help identifying a defendant, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine Richardson’s full name and badge number and the address where Richardson could be served. The Law Department was ordered to provide that information to Petties and the court within 60 days.
The order also directed the Law Department to identify whether Richardson was a current or former Department of Correction employee or official. If so, it was to note that an electronic request for waiver of service could be made under the applicable electronic-service agreement. If Richardson was not a current or former Department of Correction employee or official but worked or had worked at a Department of Correction facility, the Law Department was to provide a residential service address. After Richardson’s full name and badge number were identified, the court stated that it would issue an order asking Richardson to waive service.
Disposition and Effect
The court ordered the requested assistance with identifying and serving Correction Officer Richardson. It did not rule on the merits of Petties’s constitutional claims and did not enter a judgment resolving those claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Petties and to mail the order and amended complaint to the New York City Law Department.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.