Kattis v. The Chair of the New York Board of Parole
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-11250
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Kattis v. The Chair of the New York Board of Parole, Judge Halpern added a parole officer and ordered service, without deciding the First Amendment claim.
Christopher D. Kattis, the added defendant Parole Officer Ahumada, the previously named defendants Darryl Towns and Daniel Martuscello III, and the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service responsible for service.
What happened
Christopher D. Kattis sued the Chair of the New York Board of Parole and the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges that his parole officer violated his free-speech rights by imposing additional special conditions on his parole release.
Because Kattis is representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying court fees upfront, the court added Parole Officer Ahumada as a defendant. It directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve Towns, Martuscello, and Ahumada.
Judge Philip M. Halpern did not decide whether Kattis’s free-speech claim is valid. The order states that service must occur within 90 days after summonses are issued, and that failing to request an extension may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Kattis v. The Chair of the New York Board of Parole · No. 7:23-cv-11250
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 9, 2024
Background
Christopher D. Kattis, appearing without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech when his parole officer imposed additional special conditions on his parole terms of release. The complaint named Darryl Towns, identified as the Chair of the New York Board of Parole, and Daniel Martuscello III, identified as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had previously granted Kattis permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The complaint described the involvement of Parole Officer Ahumada, Kattis’s assigned parole officer, in imposing the special conditions.
Adding a Defendant
Because Kattis was representing himself and appeared to intend to name the individuals who participated in imposing the special conditions, the court added Parole Officer Ahumada as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses Ahumada might assert.
Service of Process
Because Kattis was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service. The Clerk was instructed to prepare the required service forms, issue summonses for Towns, Martuscello, and Ahumada, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The order states that if the complaint is not served within 90 days after summonses are issued, Kattis should request an extension of time. It warns that failing to request an extension may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. Kattis must also notify the court in writing if his address changes.
Ruling and Scope of the Order
The court ordered the Clerk to add Ahumada as a defendant and to arrange service on all three defendants. The order did not decide whether the alleged parole conditions violated Kattis’s First Amendment rights or otherwise reach the merits of his claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.