Barry v. Russo
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-03835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Barry v. Russo, Judge Karas ordered U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants and set discovery requirements.
Mamadou Barry and the four named defendants—Anthony C. Russo, Sookdew Ramdeen, Superintendent Mark Royce, and Sergeant Polanco—are affected. The order requires the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants and requires the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service.
What happened
In Barry v. Russo, Mamadou Barry, who is incarcerated and representing himself, brought a constitutional-rights lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law against Anthony C. Russo, Sookdew Ramdeen, Superintendent Mark Royce, and Sergeant Polanco. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations in detail.
Because Barry had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare documents so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve all four defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and said Barry must notify the court if his address changes.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas also ruled that a prisoner-case discovery rule applies. Within 120 days after service of the complaint, the defendants must respond to the required interrogatories and document requests. The order addressed service and discovery and did not decide whether Barry’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Barry v. Russo · No. 7:22-cv-03835
- Kenneth Karas
- May 13, 2022
Background
Mamadou Barry, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims alleging violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The defendants are Anthony C. Russo, Sookdew Ramdeen, Superintendent Mark Royce, and Sergeant Polanco. The opinion does not provide details about the alleged constitutional violations.
The court had previously granted Barry permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. In such cases, federal law requires the court to arrange for service of the summons and complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service. The court explained that Barry could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued.
Court’s Actions
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Barry should request an extension of time. The Clerk of Court was directed to issue summonses, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the listed addresses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to complete service.
The court also ordered that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, within 120 days after service of the complaint, the defendants must respond to specified interrogatories and requests for production of documents in this prisoner case. Their responses must quote each discovery request word for word.
Disposition and Scope
The order directed service and established case-management and discovery requirements. It did not rule on the merits of Barry’s constitutional-rights claims, dismiss any claim, or enter judgment for either side. The Clerk was also directed to mail Barry a copy of the order and an information package.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.