Wright v. Doe

Background

Jamek Wright, proceeding without a lawyer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for violating federal rights. He alleged that defendants violated his rights while he was detained in the George R. Vierno Center. The opinion states that he was currently detained in the Otis Bantum Correctional Center. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The caption and body identify Tiffany Morales, Deputy Warden of Security, and unnamed defendants described as the Warden of the New York City Department of Correction, an Operations Security Intelligence Unit employee, and another Operations Security Intelligence Unit employee. The opinion explains that “OSIU” means the Department of Correction’s Operations Security Intelligence Unit.

Service and Identification of Unnamed Defendants

The court requested that Tiffany Morales waive service of the summons. It directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and to mail the order and complaint to the Law Department.

Relying on a prior appellate decision concerning assistance in identifying unnamed defendants, the court found that Wright had provided enough information for the Department of Correction to identify the unnamed defendants. The court ordered the New York City Law Department, identified in the opinion as the Department of Correction’s attorney and agent, to provide the defendants’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses to Wright and the court within 60 days of the order. If the unnamed defendants were current or former Department of Correction employees or officials, the Law Department was to note whether electronic service could be requested under the applicable agreement. Otherwise, it had to provide residential addresses where service could be made.

After receiving the information, Wright must file an amended complaint within 30 days naming the unnamed defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint after it was filed and, if necessary, issue another order concerning service.

Discovery

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specific, court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants 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.

Disposition and Scope of the Order

The order did not decide whether Wright’s alleged rights violations occurred or whether any defendant was liable. It addressed service, identification of unnamed defendants, amendment of the complaint, and prisoner discovery. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Wright’s permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of such an appeal.