Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 5, 2022

Dubose v. Jiminez

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-02124
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
8
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Dubose v. Jiminez, Judge Briccetti ordered Marshals service and discovery responses in Tyrek Dubose’s civil-rights case.

Who this affects

Tyrek Dubose and the identified defendants, who were directed to participate in service and, after service, respond to the specified discovery requests. The two John Doe defendants were not subject to service at this stage.

What happened

In Dubose v. Jiminez, Tyrek Dubose, who is incarcerated and representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law against numerous defendants. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee up front.

The court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the identified defendants. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. The court did not ask the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the two John Doe defendants because Dubose had not provided enough information.

Judge Briccetti also ordered the defendants to respond to specified prisoner-discovery requests within 120 days after service. The order requires Dubose to report any address change and states that permission to proceed without prepaying fees was denied for any appeal from the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dubose v. Jiminez · No. 7:22-cv-02124
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 5, 2022

Background

Tyrek Dubose, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and was representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his rights. In an earlier order, the court allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee up front.

Service of the lawsuit

Because Dubose 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 extended the usual 90-day service period so that it would run from the date the summonses are issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Dubose should request additional time.

The court directed the Clerk to complete service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for the identified defendants, including correction officers, sergeants, nurses, prison administrators, a hearing officer, and other officials named in the order. The court did not ask the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 because Dubose had not supplied enough information to identify them.

Discovery

The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified court-ordered interrogatories and document requests. The defendants must serve their responses within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.

Other requirements and disposition

The court required Dubose to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if he does not do so. It certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

This order addresses service, discovery, and related case administration. It does not decide whether Dubose’s underlying civil-rights allegations are valid.

The authoritative version

Read the full 8-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.