Parker v. Santiago
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-09326
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Parker v. Santiago, Judge Roman ordered service of Parker’s constitutional-rights lawsuit and required defendants to provide specified discovery responses.
Keenan Parker and the four named defendants—D. Santiago, K. Breidenstein, Bay, and Stanaway—are affected. The Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service must handle service, and the defendants must provide the specified discovery responses within the ordered period.
What happened
Parker v. Santiago concerns Keenan Parker’s self-represented lawsuit alleging that four defendants violated his federal constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. He seeks money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court had already allowed Parker to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. It directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the complaint on the defendants. It also required the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service.
Judge Nelson S. Roman entered an order of service on November 8, 2023. The order did not decide whether Parker’s allegations were true or whether he would ultimately win his claims; it set the case’s service and early-discovery procedures.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Santiago · No. 7:23-cv-09326
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 8, 2023
Background
Keenan Parker, who is incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility, filed a self-represented lawsuit seeking damages. He alleges that Correctional Officer D. Santiago, Correctional Officer K. Breidenstein, Correctional Captain Bay, and Green Haven Grievance Representative Stanaway violated his federal constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state authority.
The court had previously granted Parker permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. The opinion notes that incarcerated plaintiffs remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time even when granted that permission.
Service of the lawsuit
Because Parker was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Marshals Service is therefore responsible for serving the summonses and complaint.
The order states that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service does not occur within that period, Parker should ask for more time. Parker must also notify the court in writing if his address changes; the opinion states that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Discovery requirement
The court determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants must serve responses to Parker’s standard interrogatories and requests for production within 120 days after service of the summonses and complaint, and their responses must quote each request verbatim.
Legal-assistance information
The order informed Parker that he may consult the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases. The clinic is a private organization and is not part of the court. The materials attached to the order describe limited-scope assistance, meaning Parker would remain responsible for his case and the clinic would not automatically become his attorney of record.
Disposition
The court entered an order directing service of the complaint, requiring defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2, and directing that the order and related information be mailed to Parker. The opinion does not decide the merits of Parker’s constitutional-rights claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.