Mayo v. Sergent Reid
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-09719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mayo v. Reid, Judge Halpern ordered U.S. Marshals service for Mayo’s excessive-force lawsuit and required defendants to respond to standard discovery.
Abderanman Mayo and the seven named defendants—Sgt. Reid, Sgt. Carrington, M. Gonzalez, E. Maldonado, M. DeJesus, A. Washington, and J. Lima—are affected. The Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service must carry out the service instructions, and the defendants must respond to the standard discovery requests after service.
What happened
In Mayo v. Reid, Abderanman Mayo, who is representing himself, alleges that seven defendants used excessive force against him at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses, prepare service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and give the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. Mayo must ask for more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, and he must tell the court in writing if his address changes.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also ruled that a local prisoner-case discovery rule applies. Within 120 days after service of the complaint, the defendants must respond to the standard discovery requests. The order did not decide whether Mayo’s excessive-force allegations are valid.
The detailed version
- Mayo v. Sergent Reid · No. 7:23-cv-09719
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 5, 2024
Background
Abderanman Mayo, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that allows claims for violations by people acting under state law. He alleges that Sgt. Reid, Sgt. Carrington, M. Gonzalez, E. Maldonado, M. DeJesus, A. Washington, and J. Lima used excessive force against him at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
The court had previously granted Mayo permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. Because he was proceeding under that permission, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Service of the Complaint
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for all seven defendants, complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms with the defendants’ addresses, and deliver the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service.
The court stated that the usual 90-day service period would run from the date the summonses are issued, rather than from the date the complaint was filed. If the complaint is not served within those 90 days, Mayo should request an extension of time. The court also directed Mayo to notify it in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Discovery and Electronic Service
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for documents. The defendants must serve their responses within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
The court also informed Mayo that he may choose to receive court documents by email by completing a consent form. If he chooses email service, he will no longer receive court documents by regular mail.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order of service. The Clerk was instructed to issue the summonses, prepare the service forms, provide the papers to the Marshals Service, and mail Mayo an information package. The order did not resolve the merits of Mayo’s excessive-force claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.