Haywood v. Palmer

Background

Tyrone Haywood, who was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Officers Tennessee S. Palmer and A. Valle assaulted him at Green Haven Correctional Facility in retaliation for his filing of an earlier lawsuit against other correction officers. The court had previously allowed Haywood to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service of the Lawsuit

Because Haywood was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the normal service period to 90 days after the summonses were issued. It explained that, if service was not completed within that period, Haywood should request an extension.

The Clerk of Court was directed to issue summonses for Palmer and Valle, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the service addresses provided, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. Haywood was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changed; the court warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Discovery Requirement and Disposition

The court stated that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner case. Under the order, Palmer and Valle must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses. The Clerk was directed to mail Haywood a copy of the order and an information package.

Judge Nelson S. Roman entered an order directing service of the complaint and related paperwork. The opinion does not decide whether Haywood’s assault-and-retaliation allegations are valid; it addresses service and related case-management requirements.