Jackson v. Acevedo
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-06655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jackson v. Acevedo, Judge Seibel ordered service of Jackson’s amended complaint and prisoner-case discovery responses, without deciding his constitutional claims.
Thomas Jackson, the eight named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The defendants must respond to the specified discovery requests within 120 days.
What happened
Jackson v. Acevedo is a case brought by Thomas Jackson, who is incarcerated and representing himself. He alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights under a federal civil-rights law. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
After the New York State Attorney General’s Office identified previously unnamed defendants, Jackson filed an amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare paperwork so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve eight named defendants.
Judge Cathy Seibel also ruled that a local rule requiring specific discovery responses in certain prisoner cases applies. The defendants must answer those standard requests within 120 days. The order did not decide whether Jackson’s constitutional claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Acevedo · No. 7:20-cv-06655
- Cathy Seibel
- Nov. 20, 2020
Background
Thomas Jackson, who is incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims that state actors violated constitutional rights. Jackson alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, although the order notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
On September 4, 2020, the court severed and transferred some of Jackson’s claims, directed service on identified defendants, and asked the New York State Attorney General’s Office to help identify unnamed defendants. The Attorney General’s Office supplied names on November 3, 2020, and Jackson filed an amended complaint on November 19, 2020.
Service of the Amended Complaint
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each of these defendants: Sgt. Thomas Knight, Nurse Anne Basil, Sgt. Carlos Acevedo, C.O. Vincente Santiago, C.O. Edwin Santos, C.O. Lawton Brown, C.O. Patrick Bailey, and C.O. Renee Curry. The Clerk was also directed to issue summonses and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service so it could serve those defendants.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specific, court-ordered discovery requests. Within 120 days of the order, the defendants must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests and must quote each request verbatim.
Disposition
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to issue the summonses, complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. The order is an order arranging service and discovery; it does not decide the merits of Jackson’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.