From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

London v. Watkins

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 2, 2000
99 Civ. 2769 (LAK) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 2, 2000)

Summary

ordering the identification of the officers' "last known address" pursuant to Valentin if "either officer is no longer employed by the City of New York Department of Correction"

Summary of this case from Akande v. Philips

Opinion

99 Civ. 2769 (LAK) (RLE)

June 2, 2000

OPINION ORDER


Pro Se plaintiff Vincent London ("London") brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was assaulted by a group of corrections officers, including, inter alia, a "Captain Watkins" and "Officer Jaggon," in violation of his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Beacon Correctional Facility. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

London filed the complaint on April 16, 1999, and timely served Warden Badillo, one of the named defendants, on July 27, 1999. The remaining defendants having not been served, on April 7, 2000, this Court ordered London to serve the summons and complaint on defendants Watkins and Jaggon within 60 days, or show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action as to those defendants not served. At a conference held on May 31, 2000, London indicated that he had sought the assistance of the Marshall Service, but service was still unexecuted as to Watkins and Jaggon. The Corporation Counsel has indicated that it will not waive service on their behalf.

A review of the record indicates that London has properly invoked the procedures to effect service with the assistance of the U.S. Marshal Service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 566. It is further noted that, in completing the forms, London relied on the information contained in the Notice of Infraction he received from the New York City Correction Department after the alleged incident, indicating that two of the officers involved were "Jaggon, C.O. [shield number] 13423" and "Watkins Capt. [shield number] 311." See Complaint and Attachment. Yet, the Marshall Service indicated that it was unable to effect service as to Jaggon because the "name and number do not match" and was unable to effect service on Watkins because there was "no reply."

Local Civil Rule 33.2 provides in relevant part that in pro se "use of force" cases:

[D]efendants shall . . . respond to the standing discovery requests adopted by the court, in accordance with the instructions and definitions set forth in the standing requests, unless otherwise ordered by the court. . . . The two requests, denominated Plaintiffs First and Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, shall be answered within 90 and 150 days of service of the complaint respectively. . . . The responses to the requests shall be served upon the plaintiff and shall be filed with the Pro Se Office of the court.

Warden Badillo was served on July 27, 1999, but he has not responded to the Court's standing discovery requests. Accordingly, the Court hereby directs defendant Badillo to answer the requests by June 30, 2000.

Furthermore, in view of London's right to assistance from the Court in identifying the defendants, see Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997), to the extent that Warden Badillo is unable to answer the Court's standing requests pursuant to Local Rule 33.2, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Corporation Counsel to identify the full name, shield number, and address of officers Watkins and Jaggon, and where process may be served on each of them. If either officer is no longer employed by the City of New York Department of Correction, the Corporation Counsel shall provide the date and reason for his resignation, termination, dismissal or separation and the last known address. If neither officer was on duty or otherwise present on January 5, 1999, at the location indicated on the Notice of Infraction, the Corporation Counsel shall identify all corrections officers who were on duty or were otherwise present with sufficient information such that the Court may exercise its subpoena power. All such information, if not provided in Badillo's answers to the Court's standing requests, shall be provided to London and the Court by June 30, 2000.

SO ORDERED this 31st day of May 2000 New York, New York


Summaries of

London v. Watkins

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 2, 2000
99 Civ. 2769 (LAK) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 2, 2000)

ordering the identification of the officers' "last known address" pursuant to Valentin if "either officer is no longer employed by the City of New York Department of Correction"

Summary of this case from Akande v. Philips

ordering city's Corporation Counsel to identify full names, shield numbers, and addresses of corrections officers who allegedly assaulted pro se prisoner

Summary of this case from Vasquez v. Mill
Case details for

London v. Watkins

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT LONDON, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN WATKINS, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jun 2, 2000

Citations

99 Civ. 2769 (LAK) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 2, 2000)

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. Mill

The Court notes that the identity of the arresting officers is uniquely within the knowledge of the U.S.…

Akande v. Philips

. 14-CV-4533 (ARR) (SMG), 2014 WL 4075950, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014) ("The Court requests the U.S.…