Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2022

Alli v. Renee

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:21-cv-09470
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Alli v. Renee, Judge Netburn ordered service and discovery steps while leaving Umar Alli’s constitutional and state-law claims unresolved.

Who this affects

Umar Alli, the City of New York, former Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi, Warden Renee, and the unidentified correction officers and supervising captain named in the complaint.

What happened

Umar Alli v. Renee concerns Umar Alli’s lawsuit against a detention-center warden, New York City, correction officers, a former city corrections commissioner, and a supervising captain. Alli, who was being held on Rikers Island, alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights and state law and sought money and court-ordered relief.

The court asked New York City, former Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi, and Warden Renee to accept service of the lawsuit. It also required those defendants to answer standard prisoner-case discovery requests within 120 days. The City’s Law Department had 60 days to identify the unnamed officers and provide their badge numbers and service addresses; Alli then had 30 days to file an amended complaint naming them.

Judge Netburn issued an order of service, directed the Clerk’s Office to send the required documents, and stated that the amended complaint would later be screened. The order did not decide whether Alli’s claims were legally or factually valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alli v. Renee · No. 1:21-cv-09470
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Jan. 10, 2022

Background

Umar Alli, who was being held in the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by state or local officials, as well as claims under state law. He sought damages and injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring or prohibiting specified conduct.

The named defendants were G.R.V.C. Warden Renee; the City of New York; “Security Officers 1-5 of G.R.V.C.”; the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction; and “Supervisory Captain of Use of Force.” The court understood the Commissioner defendant to refer to former Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi. The opinion identifies the unnamed officers as the correction officers involved in a physical altercation with Alli at the George R. Vierno Center on October 3, 2021, and identifies the unnamed supervisor as a correction captain who supervised those officers that day.

Court’s Actions

The order noted that an earlier order had allowed Alli to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. In this order, the court requested that the City of New York, former Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi, and Warden Renee waive service of summons. It also directed those defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires responses to specified discovery requests in certain prisoner cases. Their responses were due within 120 days of the order.

Because Alli did not know the names of some defendants, the court directed the New York City Law Department to determine their identities, badge numbers, and addresses where they could be served. That information was due to Alli and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Alli was directed to file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individuals. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it.

Disposition

Judge Netburn issued an order of service and related case-management directions. The court directed the Clerk’s Office to mail the order and an information package to Alli and to notify the New York City Department of Correction and Law Department. The court stated that it would screen any amended complaint after it was filed and, if necessary, request that the newly named defendants waive service. The order did not resolve the merits of Alli’s constitutional or state-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-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.