Rizzuto v. Annucci
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-07698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rizzuto v. Annucci, Judge Seibel ordered Marshals service for Rizzuto’s claims against 11 defendants after granting him permission to proceed without prepaying fees.
Alfonso Rizzuto, the 11 named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Alfonso Rizzuto, who is representing himself, sued Anthony Annucci and 10 other defendants over events at Woodbourne Correctional Facility in 2019. He alleges inadequate medical care, failure to accommodate a disability, and improper handling of grievances under federal civil-rights and disability laws.
Rizzuto had already received permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. Because of that permission, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The defendants are Anthony Annucci, John Morley, Mary Anne McGrath, Lynn Lilley, Reed Barnofsky, Denisha Goodman, David Howard, Miriam Weig, William Holloran, Frank Klepsis, and Ashley Harris-Baker.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms, and send the required papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order also states that Rizzuto should request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued and must notify the court if his address changes.
The detailed version
- Rizzuto v. Annucci · No. 7:22-cv-07698
- Cathy Seibel
- Jan. 18, 2023
Background
Alfonso Rizzuto, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 based on events in 2019 at Woodbourne Correctional Facility. He alleges that the defendants provided inadequate medical care for a serious medical condition, failed to reasonably accommodate his disability, and failed to properly handle his grievances.
The court had previously granted Rizzuto permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In cases proceeding on that basis, federal law requires the court to arrange service when appropriate. The court also explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued, so the service period would run for 90 days after the summonses were issued.
Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Anthony Annucci, John Morley, Mary Anne McGrath, Lynn Lilley, Reed Barnofsky, Denisha Goodman, David Howard, Miriam Weig, William Holloran, Frank Klepsis, and Ashley Harris-Baker. The Clerk was also directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant and deliver the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service.
The order states that Rizzuto should request an extension of time if the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued. It also requires him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and states that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so. The order addresses service only; it does not decide whether Rizzuto’s claims are legally valid or whether the defendants violated his rights.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.