Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2022

Cepeda v. Griffin

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:21-cv-04205
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Cepeda v. Griffin, Judge Ramos ordered service steps and instructed the Clerk to substitute Mills for Griffin without deciding Cepeda’s claims.

Who this affects

Ramon Cepeda; Captain Walden, who was to be served through the U.S. Marshals Service; Tanisha Mills, who was substituted for Linda Griffin as a defendant; and the Clerk of Court and the New York City Department of Correction and Law Department, which were directed or asked to take service-related actions.

What happened

In Cepeda v. Griffin, Ramon Cepeda, who is incarcerated and representing himself, claims under federal civil-rights law that officials at the Vernon C. Bain Center violated his constitutional rights. The case names Linda Griffin, Deputy Superintendents Louden, Jones, and Carter, and Captain Walden as defendants.

Because Cepeda was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court said he could rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued, directed the Clerk to prepare service papers for Walden, and requested that Tanisha Mills waive service.

Judge Edgardo Ramos instructed the Clerk to substitute Mills for Griffin because the New York City Law Department reported that Mills, rather than Griffin, oversaw the facility during the relevant period. The order did not decide whether Cepeda’s claims were valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cepeda v. Griffin · No. 1:21-cv-04205
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 9, 2022

Background

Ramon Cepeda, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Linda Griffin, Deputy Superintendent Louden, Deputy Superintendent Jones, Deputy Superintendent Carter, and Captain Walden violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The opinion does not decide the merits of those allegations.

Cepeda was permitted to proceed without paying the filing fee. The New York City Department of Correction filed an unexecuted waiver of service stating that Griffin and Walden were no longer employed by the Department. The New York City Law Department later provided an address for Walden and identified Tanisha Mills as the current warden of the Vernon C. Bain Center.

Service of Process

The court explained that a plaintiff allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. Although the usual service deadline is 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court extended Cepeda’s time to serve the defendants until 90 days after the summons is issued. The court stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Cepeda should request an extension of time.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to prepare a summons and a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Walden and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The court also reminded Cepeda to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Substitution and Disposition

Based on the New York City Law Department’s notice that Mills, rather than Griffin, oversaw the Vernon C. Bain Center during the period at issue, the court instructed the Clerk to substitute Mills for Griffin under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The substitution was stated to be without prejudice to any defenses Mills may assert. The court requested that Mills waive service and directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order.

Judge Edgardo Ramos did not rule on the alleged constitutional violations or otherwise resolve the parties’ underlying dispute. This was an order concerning service of process and the substitution of a defendant.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.