Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 2, 2022

Castillo v. Snedeker

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:21-cv-11109
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Castillo v. Snedeker, Judge Halpern ordered New York’s Attorney General to identify defendants so service could proceed.

Who this affects

Pedro Castillo, the three defendants whom the court sought to identify and serve, the New York State Attorney General, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Castillo v. Snedeker, Pedro Castillo sued correctional employees after earlier service attempts failed because the U.S. Marshals Service could not locate them at the listed facility.

The court said Castillo, who was representing himself, provided enough information for the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the defendants. The court required New York’s Attorney General to find their badge numbers and service addresses within 60 days.

Judge Halpern directed the Clerk to mail the order and complaint to the Attorney General and said the court would arrange service after receiving the information. He also denied free-court-cost status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Castillo v. Snedeker · No. 7:21-cv-11109
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Nov. 2, 2022

Background

Pedro Castillo, who was representing himself, alleged that C.O. R.C. Snedeker, SHU Director Venetozzi, and C.H.O. Henley caused him to be wrongfully confined in a Special Housing Unit through actions taken between February 17, 2015, and February 27, 2019. The court had previously directed service on those defendants and applied Local Civil Rule 33.2. The U.S. Marshals Service later returned the service forms unexecuted, reporting that each defendant was not located at the listed facility.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on Valentin v. Dinkins, which recognizes that a person representing himself is entitled to the district court’s help identifying a defendant. The court found that Castillo’s complaint supplied enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify Snedeker, Venetozzi, and Henley.

Order

The court ordered the New York State Attorney General, as the attorney and agent for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, to determine the defendants’ badge numbers and the addresses where they could be served. The Attorney General must provide that information to Castillo and the court within 60 days. If any defendant is a former Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employee or official, the Attorney General must provide residential address information where that person may be served.

After receiving the information, the court said it would direct the Clerk to complete the service form with the defendants’ addresses and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk to mail this order and the complaint to the Attorney General. He also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied free-court-cost status for purposes of an appeal.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order addressed identifying the defendants and completing service. It did not decide whether Castillo was wrongfully confined or otherwise resolve the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.