Genao v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-08731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Genao v. City of New York, Judge Ramos denied a pro se plaintiff’s request for help paying third-party subpoena fees in his civil-rights case.
Gabino Genao’s request for assistance with filing and serving third-party subpoenas was denied; the order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
Gabino Genao, representing himself, sued the City of New York and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional violations during an incident on Rikers Island. He later sought camera footage from the incident through subpoenas.
Genao asked the court to help pay the costs of filing and serving subpoenas on third parties because he was proceeding without paying court fees. The court denied that request, explaining that the law requires court officers to issue and serve process for qualifying plaintiffs but does not require payment of discovery costs.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and send Genao a copy of the order. The order addressed only the subpoena-fee request and did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
The detailed version
- Genao v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08731
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
Gabino Genao brought this action representing himself under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by persons acting under state law. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated during an incident on Rikers Island. After requesting a subpoena for camera footage from the incident, Genao asked the court to assist with the fees for filing and serving subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on third parties.
Issue
The issue was whether Genao’s status as a plaintiff proceeding without paying court filing fees required the court to pay the costs associated with filing and serving the third-party subpoenas.
Ruling and reasoning
The court denied Genao’s request. It explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) requires court officers to issue and serve process in cases involving qualifying plaintiffs proceeding without paying court fees, but does not require payment of discovery costs. The court therefore declined to provide assistance with the subpoena fees.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Genao’s motion, docketed as Document 30, and to send him a copy of the order. The order ruled on the subpoena-fee request; it did not address the merits of Genao’s underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.