Jude v. Jane Morrow
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-10560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Steven Jude v. Virginia Morrow, Judge Seibel ordered service and identification steps in Jude’s prisoner civil-rights lawsuit.
Steven Jude, the named defendants, the unidentified John Doe officer, the New York State Attorney General, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Steven Jude, who is incarcerated, brought a lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law alleging excessive force, harassment, retaliation, and denial of due process while he was confined at Sullivan Correctional Facility. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees up front.
The court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Virginia Morrow and the listed Sullivan Correctional Facility officials. It also ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify a John Doe officer, after which Jude must file an amended complaint naming that defendant. The court corrected Morrow’s first name from Jane to Virginia and required the defendants to answer standard prisoner discovery requests.
Judge Cathy Seibel’s order addressed service, identifying an unnamed defendant, and discovery; it did not decide whether Jude’s allegations were true or whether he should win the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Jude v. Jane Morrow · No. 7:22-cv-10560
- Cathy Seibel
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
Steven Jude, who was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility when the order was issued, filed a self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. He alleged that, while confined at Sullivan Correctional Facility, the defendants used excessive force, harassed and retaliated against him, and violated his right to due process. The court had previously allowed Jude to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service on Named Defendants
Because Jude was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare U.S. Marshals Service forms for Virginia Morrow; Sergeant Courtney E. Ferris; and Officers Christopher J. Kinne, Damian Cruz, George Gilmore, Jr., George Gilmore, Sr., Adam Houser, Timothy D. Fitzpatrick, John H. Kratz, and Paul Holland. The Clerk was directed to provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve those defendants.
The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Jude should request more time. The court also directed Jude to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Correction of Defendant’s Name
Although Jude had sued “Jane” Morrow, the court stated that her first name was Virginia and directed the Clerk to correct the docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.
Unidentified Defendant
Jude also sought to sue a John Doe officer at Sullivan Correctional Facility. Because a self-represented litigant is entitled to court assistance in identifying a defendant, the court ordered the New York State Attorney General to determine the officer’s identity and service address and provide that information to Jude and the court within 60 days.
Within 30 days after receiving that information, Jude must file an amended complaint giving the John Doe defendant’s full name and service address. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will then screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to arrange service on the newly identified defendant.
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 interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The defendants must serve their responses within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition and Effect
The order directed administrative and service steps so the case could proceed against the named defendants and potentially against the unidentified officer. It did not resolve the merits of Jude’s allegations or determine whether any defendant violated his rights.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.