Summers v. Burnett
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-10784
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Summers v. Burnett, Judge Roman ordered service and identification of unnamed defendants in Summers’s prisoner civil-rights case.
Basyir Summers; the named defendants Edward Burnett, Cicala, Deleon, Christopher A. Perry, M. Cordovano, and Medical Personnel Wolf; the unnamed defendants; the New York State Attorney General; and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Summers v. Burnett, Basyir Summers, who is incarcerated, sued under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that the defendants failed to protect him from an assault by other incarcerated people. He is representing himself and was permitted to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the materials needed to serve Edward Burnett, Cicala, Deleon, Christopher Perry, M. Cordovano, and medical personnel Wolf. The New York State Attorney General must identify the unnamed defendants and provide their identifying and service information within 60 days. Summers must then file an amended complaint naming the identified defendants within 30 days after receiving that information.
Judge Nelson S. Roman also applied a prisoner-case discovery rule requiring defendants to answer specified interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service. The order addressed service, identification of defendants, and discovery; it did not decide the merits of Summers’s allegations.
The detailed version
- Summers v. Burnett · No. 7:23-cv-10784
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
Basyir Summers, who is incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He alleges that the defendants failed to protect him from an assault by other incarcerated individuals. Summers is proceeding without a lawyer. The court had granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of the Complaint
Because Summers was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the complaint. The Clerk was ordered to issue summonses, complete the required service forms with addresses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Superintendent Edward Burnett, Sergeant Cicala, Sergeant Deleon, Officer Christopher A. Perry, Officer M. Cordovano, and Medical Personnel Wolf.
The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Summers should request more time. The court also required Summers to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he does not do so.
Identifying Unnamed Defendants
The complaint refers to John Does #1 and #2 and Jane Doe #1. The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the John Doe defendants. The court therefore ordered the New York State Attorney General to determine the identity and badge number of each John Doe defendant and the address where each could be served, and to provide that information to Summers and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Summers must file an amended complaint naming the identified John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After it is filed, the court will screen it and may issue further service instructions.
Discovery Requirement and Disposition
The court applied Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer court-ordered interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Defendants must serve responses to those standard discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and take the other service-related steps, directed the Attorney General to assist in identifying the unnamed defendants, and applied Local Civil Rule 33.2. This was an order concerning service, defendant identification, and discovery; it did not resolve whether Summers’s failure-to-protect allegations are legally or factually valid.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.