Rodriguez v. Burnett

Background

Ralph Rodriguez, who is incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights during his incarceration at Fishkill. A prior order directed service on Superintendent Edward R. Burnett; Deputy of Security Stephen Urbanski; Deputy Superintendent Akinola Akinyombo; Sergeant Block; Supervisor Sally A. Reams; Mohammad A. Bhuiyan; Davachi M. Sullivan; Oujas Gifty; and Sangeethe L. Mukkatt. That order also dismissed all claims against New York State, the County of Dutchess, Commissioner Annucci, and Governor Hochul.

Replacement of unidentified defendants

The court deemed the complaint amended to replace John Doe defendants 1 through 10 with Assistant Commissioner Robert Mitchell; Correction Officers Richard Flanagan, Johnathon Franco, Angel Matos, Vincente Santiago, Jean Marc Oge, Jason Crofoot, and Carlton Garrett; and Office of Special Investigation members Christopher Ciacco and Shawn Hanley. It replaced Jane Doe defendants 1 through 3 with Office of Special Investigation members Alexis Cherry, Jan Okusko, and Aleshia Rose.

Service and deadlines

Because Rodriguez had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk was directed to complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on Mitchell, Flanagan, Franco, Matos, Santiago, Oge, Crofoot, Garrett, Ciacco, Hanley, Cherry, Okusko, and Rose.

The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that if service is not completed within that period, Rodriguez should request an extension of time. Rodriguez was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.

Discovery

The court stated that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner case. Within 120 days after service of the complaint on the newly identified defendants, those defendants must respond to the standard discovery requests identified by the court. Their responses must quote each request verbatim. The court noted that Rodriguez may request copies of the discovery requests from the Pro Se Intake Unit if he cannot access them online.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk to mail Rodriguez an information package, substitute the newly identified defendants for the John and Jane Doe entries on the docket, and issue summonses and service paperwork for the newly identified defendants. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed service and related case administration; it did not decide whether Rodriguez’s constitutional-rights allegations were proven.