Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 1, 2021

Alava v. Lamanna

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:20-cv-10276
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil ProcedurePro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Alava v. Lamanna, Judge Seibel ordered service and discovery steps for Plaintiff’s constitutional-rights suit without deciding its merits.

Who this affects

Princess Debbie Alava, the 19 named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order requires the Clerk and Marshals Service to facilitate service, requires the defendants to respond to specified discovery, and imposes address-notification and service-deadline requirements on Alava.

What happened

In Alava v. Lamanna, Princess Debbie Alava, who is incarcerated and representing herself, alleges that the defendants violated her federal constitutional rights and seeks money and court-ordered relief. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendants could be served. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and told Alava to notify the court if her address changes.

Judge Seibel also ordered the defendants to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. The court did not decide whether Alava’s constitutional claims were valid, and it denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alava v. Lamanna · No. 7:20-cv-10276
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Feb. 1, 2021

Background

Princess Debbie Alava, who was incarcerated at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer. She seeks damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants violated her federal constitutional rights. The opinion states that the court had already granted her permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).

Service of process

Because Alava was proceeding IFP, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summonses are issued, explaining that Alava could not serve the summonses and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued.

The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for the 19 listed defendants, complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms with their service addresses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the complaint. The court also stated that Alava must notify the court in writing if her address changes and that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.

Discovery requirement

The court determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants must serve responses within 120 days after service and must quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The court ordered service on the defendants and ordered them to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. It did not rule on the merits of Alava’s constitutional claims. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-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.