Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 11, 2023

Santos v. Nembhard

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:23-cv-02735
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983DiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Santos v. Nembhard, Judge Oetken arranged service and discovery responses in Santos’s prisoner civil-rights case.

Who this affects

Indira O. Santos and RMSC Captain Nembhard, Shield # 1777; the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department were directed to receive notice of the order.

What happened

Santos v. Nembhard is a civil-rights case brought by Indira O. Santos, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island and represented herself. She sued under a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights.

The court directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. It requested that RMSC Captain Nembhard waive service of the summons and ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies, requiring Nembhard to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint.

Judge Oetken also directed the Clerk to mail Santos an information package and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Santos’s underlying claims were valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Santos v. Nembhard · No. 1:23-cv-02735
Judge
James Oetken
Date
May 11, 2023

Background

Indira O. Santos, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated her rights. The opinion identifies RMSC Captain Nembhard, Shield # 1777, as the defendant addressed by the order. The court had previously granted Santos permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion notes that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee even when granted that permission.

Order Regarding Service

The Clerk of Court was directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. The court requested that RMSC Captain Nembhard waive service of the summons.

Discovery Requirement

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered discovery requests. The opinion states that, within 120 days after service of the complaint, Nembhard must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests and must quote each request verbatim in the responses. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Santos an information package, and stated that she could request copies of the discovery requests from the Pro Se Intake Unit if she could not access them online.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. Permission to proceed without prepaying fees was therefore denied for purposes of an appeal. This order arranged service and discovery procedures; it did not decide the merits of Santos’s underlying civil-rights allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.