Pearson v. New York State
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-05670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Robert Pearson Jr. v. Sergeant Gesner et al., Judge Halpern ordered service and discovery for Pearson’s lawsuit alleging chemical spray and denied medical treatment.
Robert Pearson Jr. and the four defendants named in the amended complaint—Sergeant Gessner, Officer Morris, Officer Halstead, and Officer Broeckel—were affected. The Clerk, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Orange County Law Department also received directions from the court.
What happened
Robert Pearson Jr. v. Sergeant Gesner et al. concerns Pearson’s claim that, in April 2021, someone sprayed a chemical into his eye and he was later refused medical treatment. Pearson brought the case without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law.
The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the four named officers could be served. The court also required those defendants to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days of the order. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order on September 20, 2021. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Pearson v. New York State · No. 7:21-cv-05670
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 20, 2021
Background
Robert Pearson Jr., who was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that in April 2021 he was sprayed in the eye with a chemical and then refused medical treatment. Pearson was allowed to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee.
Pearson first filed a pleading that referred to unidentified defendants. Before the Orange County Attorney could identify those individuals, Pearson filed an amended complaint naming Sergeant Gessner (Badge No. 138), Officer Morris (Badge No. 437), Officer Halstead (Badge No. 148), and Officer Broeckel (Badge No. 320).
Service of the Amended Complaint
Because Pearson was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court directed the Clerk to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and give the Marshals Service the paperwork needed for service.
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. If the amended complaint is not served within that period, Pearson should request more time. The court also directed Pearson to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Discovery
The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified discovery requests. The four defendants must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days of the order and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk to mail Pearson the order and an information package, issue summonses, complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail the order and amended complaint to the Orange County Law Department. The court directed Gessner, Morris, Halstead, and Broeckel to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed service and discovery; it did not decide whether Pearson’s allegations ultimately establish a violation of his rights.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.