Rodriguez v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-09840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Woods ordered service steps and identification of unnamed officers while the civil-rights case proceeds.
Peter Rodriguez, the City of New York, the named correctional officers, the two currently unnamed officers, and the New York City Law Department are affected by the service, identification, amendment, and discovery directives.
What happened
Peter Rodriguez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and several correctional officers under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges that a fire started in his cell on August 31, 2020, and that officers responded by spraying him with a fire extinguisher and mace, causing severe symptoms related to his asthma.
The court asked several named defendants to waive formal service of the lawsuit. It also ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the two unnamed officers, including their badge numbers and service addresses, within 60 days. Rodriguez must then file an amended complaint naming those officers within 30 days after receiving the information.
The court ruled that the case is subject to a standard prisoner-discovery rule and ordered defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days. Judge Gregory H. Woods issued this order of service; the opinion does not decide whether Rodriguez's claims are legally or factually valid.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09840
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
Peter Rodriguez, who was incarcerated at the Manhattan Detention Complex, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state or local actors. He alleges that a fire occurred in his cell on August 31, 2020. According to the complaint, officers responded by spraying him with a fire extinguisher and mace. Rodriguez says he has asthma and experienced severe physical symptoms after being sprayed.
Chief Judge McMahon had previously granted Rodriguez permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The opinion notes that prisoners who receive that permission must still pay the full filing fee through the statutory payment process.
Service on Named Defendants
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. The court requested that the City of New York, Correction Officer Ferrero, Captain Gibson, and Emergency Services Unit Captain Moise waive service of summons, meaning that they could accept notice of the lawsuit without personal service.
Identification of Unnamed Defendants
Because Rodriguez provided enough information to identify the two Emergency Services Unit officers referred to as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine their identities, badge numbers, and addresses where they could be served. The Law Department must provide that information to Rodriguez and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Rodriguez must file an amended complaint naming the two officers. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than add to it. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint after filing and may issue another order concerning service.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Defendants must serve their responses within 120 days of the order and must quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition and Scope
This is an order of service and case administration. The court requested service waivers, ordered identification of the unnamed officers, required a later amended complaint, and applied the standard discovery rule. It did not grant or deny judgment on Rodriguez's claims and did not decide whether the alleged conduct violated his rights. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.