Castillo v. Snedeker
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-11109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Castillo v. Snedeker, Judge Halpern arranged service of Castillo’s civil-rights lawsuit and ordered defendants to answer standard discovery requests.
Pedro Castillo and the three defendants identified as C.O. Robert C. Snedeker, First Deputy Superintendent Donald Venettozzi, and C.H.O. Katherine Henley.
What happened
Pedro Castillo, who is incarcerated and represents himself, alleges that three correctional officials violated his due-process rights by wrongfully confining him in segregated housing. Earlier service attempts failed because the officials could not be found at the provided addresses.
The court identified the officials as C.O. Robert C. Snedeker, First Deputy Superintendent Donald Venettozzi, and C.H.O. Katherine Henley. Because Castillo was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them and extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses are issued.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also applied the court’s prisoner-discovery rule, requiring the defendants to respond to specified interrogatories and document requests within 120 days. The order arranged service and discovery but did not decide whether Castillo’s allegations were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. Snedeker · No. 7:21-cv-11109
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 4, 2023
Background
Pedro Castillo, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants violated his due-process rights and wrongfully confined him in the segregated housing unit. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The U.S. Marshals Service attempted to serve the defendants at the addresses originally provided, but reported that none of them could be located there. At the court’s direction, the New York State Attorney General provided the defendants’ full names and service addresses. The court treated the complaint as amended to identify them as C.O. Robert C. Snedeker, First Deputy Superintendent Donald Venettozzi, and C.H.O. Katherine Henley.
Service of Process
Because Castillo was permitted to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, he was entitled to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. 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, Castillo should request an extension of time.
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. Castillo was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner action. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The defendants must serve their responses within 120 days of the order and must quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the Clerk to issue summonses, prepare the service forms, and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also directed that the defendants’ names be updated on the docket and confirmed that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. The order addressed service and discovery; it did not decide the merits of Castillo’s due-process or confinement allegations.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.