Booker v. NYS DOCCS
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-02355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Booker v. Sefman, Judge Roman ordered service of Booker’s civil-rights complaint and required Sefman to answer standard discovery requests.
Diquan Booker and Sergeant Sefman; DOCCS had already been dismissed from the action.
What happened
In Booker v. Sefman, Diquan Booker, representing himself, sued over allegations that Sergeant Sefman failed to protect him from an attempted killing by other prisoners and from COVID-19 infection. The court treated the amended complaint as raising civil-rights claims under federal law.
Booker originally sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and Sergeant Sefman. The court had already dismissed the Department from the case. After Booker filed an amended complaint naming only Sefman, service had not yet been completed.
Judge Roman directed the Clerk’s Office and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Sefman with the summons and amended complaint. He also required Sefman to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. The order did not decide whether Booker’s allegations were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Booker v. NYS DOCCS · No. 7:22-cv-02355
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
Diquan Booker filed an amended civil action for damages while representing himself and while incarcerated. He alleged that, during his incarceration at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Sergeant Sefman failed to protect him from an attempt on his life by other prisoners and from becoming infected with COVID-19. The court construed the amended complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims against state actors for violating federal rights.
Booker initially named the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and Sergeant Sefman. The court previously dismissed DOCCS and issued an order directing service. After confirming that service had not occurred, the court granted Booker leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint named only Sergeant Sefman.
Order
Because Booker had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Sefman, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Sefman’s service address, and deliver the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Marshals Service was to serve Sefman with the summons and amended complaint.
The court also determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered discovery. Sefman was directed to serve responses to Booker’s standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the amended complaint and to quote each request verbatim in the responses.
Other Directives and Disposition
The court directed Booker to notify it in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee for an appeal. Judge Nelson S. Roman’s order addressed service and discovery; it did not resolve the merits of Booker’s allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.