Castillo v. Snedeker
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-11109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Castillo v. Snedeker, Judge Halpern ordered service and discovery in Pedro Castillo’s civil-rights case but denied fee-free appeal status.
Pedro Castillo, the three named defendants, the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the defendants’ discovery obligations.
What happened
In Castillo v. Snedeker, Pedro Castillo, who is incarcerated, sued Correction Officer R.C. Snedeker, D. Venettozzi, and C.H.O. Henley under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges that they violated his right to fair procedures and wrongfully confined him in segregated housing. The order does not decide whether those allegations are true.
Because Castillo was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It also ruled that a local prisoner-case discovery rule applies and required the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the Clerk to send the service materials to the Marshals Service and a copy of the order to Castillo. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. Snedeker · No. 7:21-cv-11109
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 12, 2022
Background
Pedro Castillo, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people who violate constitutional rights while acting under state law. Castillo alleges that Correction Officer R.C. Snedeker, SHU Director D. Venettozzi, and Commissioner Hearing Officer C.H.O. Henley violated his due-process rights and wrongfully confined him in the segregated housing unit. An earlier order allowed Castillo to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
Service of the Complaint
Because Castillo was allowed to proceed without paying the fee upfront, the court held that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summonses and complaint. The court extended the deadline for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Castillo should request more time if service is not completed by that deadline and must notify the court in writing if his address changes.
The court directed the Clerk to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to make service. The listed defendants were Correction Officer R.C. Snedeker, SHU Director D. Venettozzi, and Commissioner Hearing Officer C.H.O. Henley.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants must serve responses to those standard interrogatories and requests for production within 120 days of the order and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
Conclusion and Appeal
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk to issue the summonses, complete the service forms, and send the necessary materials to the Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Castillo a copy of the order and an information package. Finally, the court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of Castillo’s allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.