Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2021

Winters v. City of New York

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-02440
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Winters v. City of New York, Judge Failla dismissed claims against DOC, substituted the City, and ordered service-related steps and discovery responses.

Who this affects

Jason Winters’s claims against the Department of Correction were dismissed. The City of New York was substituted for that agency in the caption, and the City and Correction Officer Moore were directed to address the specified discovery requests within 120 days.

What happened

In Winters v. City of New York, Jason Winters, who represented himself, sued the New York City Department of Correction and Correction Officer Moore. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court ruled that the Department of Correction is a City agency that cannot be sued and dismissed Winters’s claims against it. Because Winters clearly intended to sue the City, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department with the City of New York in the case caption. The court also asked the City and Moore to waive service of summons.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the City and Moore to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days and to quote each request in their responses. The caption change was made without prejudice to defenses the City may assert.

The detailed version

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

Case
Winters v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-02440
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Apr. 21, 2021

Background

Jason Winters, who appeared without a lawyer, asserted claims against the “City of New York Dept. of Correction(s)” and Correction Officer Moore, badge number 17409. The opinion does not state what those underlying claims are.

Rulings concerning the parties

The court held that the New York City Department of Correction, as a City agency, is not an entity that can be sued. It therefore dismissed Winters’s claims against the Department of Correction.

Because Winters’s complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City and directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption by replacing the Department of Correction with the City of New York. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may later assert.

Service and discovery

The court directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City and Correction Officer Moore waive service of summons.

The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the City and Moore must serve responses to the specified prisoner-case interrogatories and document requests within 120 days of the order. Their responses must quote each request verbatim. The Clerk was directed to mail Winters a copy of the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.