King v. Garcia

Background

Sharif King, who was incarcerated at the time of the order, brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, W. Garcia failed to protect him. The court had granted King permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, although the opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the federal prisoner-fee statute.

Identification and Service

The court issued an earlier order directing service using an address for W. Garcia at Downstate Correctional Facility. The U.S. Marshals Service attempted service twice, on February 25 and March 11, 2022, but both attempts were unsuccessful.

The court then directed the New York State Attorney General to identify Garcia and provide an address for service. The Attorney General reported that the defendant was most likely New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Correction Officer William Garcia, Jr., Badge No. 58039, and provided an address at Sullivan Correctional Facility. The court deemed the complaint amended to identify C.O. William Garcia, Jr., Badge No. 58039 as the defendant previously listed as “W. Garcia.”

Because King was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Garcia. The Clerk was instructed to issue a summons, complete the U.S. Marshals Service process forms with Garcia’s address, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. King was also told to notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

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. Garcia was ordered to serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days of the order and to quote each request verbatim in the responses.

Disposition and Effect

The order directed service and set discovery requirements. It did not decide the merits of King’s allegation that Garcia failed to protect him. The Clerk was also directed to update the docket to reflect Garcia’s identification and to mail King a copy of the order and an information package.