STEELE v. CHICCHI et al

Filing 136

OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 9/13/2012. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
YUSEF STEELE,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3551 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN CICCHI, et al.,
Defendants.

THE COURT earlier recited the procedural history of the
action.

(See generally dkt. entry no. 124, 7-9-12 Order).

We now

repeat only those facts deemed germane to the instant dispute.
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, on January 30, 2012, determined inter
alia that the plaintiff, Yusef Steele, was entitled to serve a
subpoena duces tecum (“the Subpoena”) upon “Jose Varges” of Speedy
Bail Bonds.

(See dkt. entry no. 83, 1-30-12 Letter Order at 5-6;

see also dkt. entry no. 52-1, Subpoena.)1

The Magistrate Judge

thus directed the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to serve
the Subpoena upon “Jose Varges”.

(See 1-30-12 Letter Order at

5-6.)
THE DEFENDANT Warden Edmond Cicchi thereafter filed a motion
for summary judgment in his favor and against Steele.

1

(Dkt. entry

The Court earlier noted that the individual named by Steele
as “Jose Varges” may actually be named “Jose Tarvez”, “Jose
Taveras”, or “Jose Taveres”. (See 7-9-12 Order at 2, n.1.)

no. 115, Cicchi Mot.)

The remaining defendants, Deputy Warden F.

Masone, Internal Affairs Sergeant Paul De Amicis, and Captain C.
Barth, filed separate motions for summary judgment in their
respective favors and against Steele.

(See dkt. entry no. 117,

Masone Mot.; dkt. entry no. 118, De Amicis Mot.; dkt. entry no.
120, Barth Mot.)
STEELE did not file formal opposition to the defendants’
respective motions for summary judgment.

He instead filed a letter

where, inter alia, he: (1) requested additional time to file
opposition papers; and (2) noted that the USMS had not yet served
the Subpoena.

(Dkt. entry no. 122, 5-12-12 Letter at 22, 74.)

That letter was liberally construed as a motion to defer
consideration of the defendants’ respective motions for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

(See

7-9-12 Order at 3-4.)
THE COURT denied the defendants’ respective motions for
summary judgment without prejudice.

(See id. at 5.)

In so doing,

the Court determined that Steele: (1) properly sought information
from “Jose” of Speedy Bail Bonds pursuant to the Subpoena;
(2) demonstrated that the information sought in the Subpoena
materially affected his ability to file meaningful opposition
papers; and (3) properly relied upon the USMS to serve the
Subpoena.

(See id. at 4.)

The Court redirected the USMS to serve

2

the Subpoena and ordered the defendants to move anew for relief
after seeking leave from the Magistrate Judge.

(See id. at 6.)

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE thereafter ordered the defendants to file
new motions for summary judgment by September 7, 2012.
entry no. 129, 7-27-12 Letter Order at 5.)

(See dkt.

The defendants

substantially complied with the Magistrate Judge’s order.

(See

dkt. entry no. 132, 2d Cicchi Mot.; dkt. entry no. 133, 2d Masone
Mot.; dkt. entry no. 135, 2d De Amicis Mot. (filed on 9-10-12);
dkt. entry no. 134, 2d Barth Mot.)
THE PARTIES have now reached the same impasse that the Court
resolved through the 7-9-12 Order.
Subpoena.

The USMS has not yet served the

The Court will accordingly, for good cause appearing,

again deny the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment
without prejudice.

The defendants may move anew for relief after:

(1) the USMS serves the Subpoena; or (2) the Magistrate Judge, upon
a showing by the parties that the USMS is unable to serve the
Subpoena, grants the defendants leave to file such motions.
THE COURT will enter an appropriate Order.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
.
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date:

September 13, 2012

3