Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 30, 2021

Houston v. Capra

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-02135
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Houston v. Capra, Judge Briccetti ordered service and identification steps for newly added defendants but did not decide Houston’s constitutional claims.

Who this affects

Tyrone Houston; the newly added identified defendants; the two unidentified defendants; the New York State Attorney General; the Clerk of Court; and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Houston v. Capra concerns Tyrone Houston’s amended constitutional-rights claims against officials and staff connected to Sing Sing and Fishkill correctional facilities. Houston is incarcerated, represents himself, and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

The court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the amended complaint on newly added defendants. It also required standard prisoner-case discovery, directed the New York Attorney General to help identify two defendants, and ordered that two previously terminated defendants be added back to the docket.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued this procedural order on April 30, 2021. The order did not decide whether Houston’s constitutional claims were valid, and it denied permission to appeal without paying fees for an appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Houston v. Capra · No. 7:20-cv-02135
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 30, 2021

Background

Tyrone Houston, who is incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, filed this case while representing himself and proceeding without paying court fees upfront. He asserted constitutional-rights claims against officials and staff associated with the Sing Sing and Fishkill correctional facilities, including unidentified defendants. The court had previously allowed Houston to amend his complaint, and he filed an amended complaint on April 26, 2021, adding identified and unidentified defendants.

Service on Identified Defendants

Because Houston was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the amended complaint on the newly added defendants listed in the appendix. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. The order states that defendants who had already been served and whose attorney had appeared did not need to be served again.

The court also stated that prisoners must pay the full filing fee even when permitted to proceed without paying fees upfront. It directed the Clerk to re-add Correctional Officer Baily—described in the order as the steady relief female officer for A-Block in 2018–2019 at Sing Sing—and Stephen Urbanski, whom the Clerk had mistakenly terminated from the docket.

Discovery

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

Identifying Unnamed Defendants

The court required the New York State Attorney General, acting as the attorney for and agent of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, to determine the identity and service information for two newly added unidentified defendants: a John Doe described as the special-housing-unit sergeant on a specified January 9, 2021 shift, and Davis, identified as the nurse who conducted a January 6, 2021 COVID-19 test at Fishkill. The Attorney General was ordered to provide the identities, badge numbers if applicable, and service addresses to Houston and the court within 60 days.

Because the order identified only one fully unidentified John Doe defendant, the court stated that Houston did not need to file another amended complaint naming that defendant.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk to prepare the service forms and deliver the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. Chambers was also directed to mail Houston a copy of the order. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed service, discovery, and defendant identification; it did not decide the merits of Houston’s constitutional claims.

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.