Woods v. Westchester County D.O.C.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-10884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Woods v. Westchester County, Judge Halpern ordered service of the amended complaint and required defendants to answer standard discovery requests.
Robert Woods, Westchester County, Correction Officer Williams, the Clerk of Court, and the United States Marshals Service; the defendants must respond to the specified discovery requests after service.
What happened
Woods v. Westchester County involves Robert Woods’s claims about events he says occurred while he was held as a pretrial detainee in the Westchester County Jail. He names Westchester County and Correction Officer Williams as defendants and asserts constitutional and state-law claims.
The court had already allowed Woods to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because of that status, the court directed the United States Marshals Service to serve the summons and amended complaint on the defendants.
The court also required the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. Judge Philip M. Halpern did not decide whether Woods’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Woods v. Westchester County D.O.C. · No. 7:23-cv-10884
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
Robert Woods, who the opinion says was being held at the Hudson County Correctional Facility, brought this action concerning events he alleges occurred while he was a pretrial detainee at the Westchester County Jail. The defendants named in the caption are the County of Westchester and Correction Officer Williams. The court construed Woods’s amended complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims for certain violations of federal rights by state actors, along with state-law claims.
The court had previously granted Woods permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. That permission is commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The opinion notes that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time under the applicable statute.
Service of the Defendants
Because Woods was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the United States Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was directed to issue summonses, complete a United States Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the summonses and amended complaint.
The court extended the service period so that service would be due within 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that Woods should request an extension if service was not completed within that period. It also required Woods to notify the court in writing of any address change and stated that the action may be dismissed 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 specific court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants were directed to serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service. Their responses must quote each request verbatim.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Woods an information package, issue summonses, complete the service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the United States Marshals Service. The court further directed the defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days of service. This order addressed service and discovery; it did not decide the merits of Woods’s constitutional or state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.