Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 8, 2021

Murphy v. Spaulding

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:20-cv-09013
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Murphy v. Spaulding, Judge Karas added Westchester County and ordered service and discovery procedures without deciding Murphy’s claims.

Who this affects

Mark P. Murphy, the four named jail-official defendants, the County of Westchester, and the U.S. Marshals Service were affected by the court’s directives. The order added the County as a defendant, arranged service, and imposed discovery deadlines; it did not decide the claims’ merits.

What happened

In Murphy v. Spaulding, Mark P. Murphy, who was representing himself and held at the Westchester County Jail, alleged that four jail officials violated his federal constitutional rights and asserted state-law claims. He sought damages and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

The court treated the official-capacity claims against three officers as claims against the County of Westchester and directed the Clerk to add the County as a defendant. The court also directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the amended complaint and summonses, extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued, and required the defendants to answer specified prisoner-discovery requests within 120 days after service.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered the order on March 8, 2021. The order did not decide whether Murphy’s claims were legally valid, and it denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Murphy v. Spaulding · No. 7:20-cv-09013
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Mar. 8, 2021

Background

Mark P. Murphy, who was proceeding without a lawyer and was held at the Westchester County Jail, sued Assistant Warden La. Spaulding, Correction Sergeant Carrozza, Correction Officer Iaboni, and Correction Officer Shmitt. The opinion states that Murphy’s amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and under state law. He sought damages. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, although prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time.

County of Westchester

The court treated Murphy’s official-capacity claims against Carrozza, Iaboni, and Shmitt as claims against the County of Westchester. Because Murphy was representing himself and clearly intended to sue the County, the court directed the Clerk of Court to add the County as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the County might later assert.

Service of the Lawsuit

Because Murphy was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the amended complaint and summonses. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after summonses were issued. It also instructed Murphy to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Discovery Requirements

The court determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified interrogatories and document requests. The defendants were directed to serve responses within 120 days after service and to quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed the Clerk to add the County of Westchester as a defendant, issue summonses for the County and the four named defendants, prepare the required service forms, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. He also directed the defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. The order did not resolve the merits of Murphy’s federal or state-law claims. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.