Favors v. Coughlin, 876
Decision Date | 19 June 1989 |
Docket Number | D,No. 876,876 |
Parties | James FAVORS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, Commissioner, Daniel A. Senkowski, Acting Superintendent, R. Fuller, Deputy Superintendent, Sgt. Thomas Marlow, C.O., Patrick Buckley, C.O. and Captain W.R. Babbie, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 88-2208. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y., Albany, N.Y. , submitted brief for defendants-appellees.
Barbara Kolsun, New York City (Dechert Price & Rhoads, New York City, of counsel), submitted brief for plaintiff-appellant.
Before KAUFMAN, CARDAMONE and PRATT, Circuit Judges.
Appellant James Favors appeals from an April 5, 1988 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McCurn, J.), which adopted the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate and thereby granted appellees' motion to dismiss Favors's civil rights complaint. Favors filed this pro se civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982) asserting that, as the result of an altercation allegedly initiated by correctional officers at Clinton Correctional Facility, excessive force was used by the officers in restraining him, and that the use of force was violative of his liberty interest guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. Appellant also alleged that he was retaliated against for making complaints and was denied due process when he was placed in punitive segregation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
This appeal presents two somewhat interrelated questions: (1) whether Favors's right to a trial by jury of his Sec. 1983 claim was waived under Fed.R.Civ.P. 38; and if so, (2) whether the proceedings before the United States Magistrate were proper under federal law. E.g., 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 (1982).
We first hold that Favors waived his right to a jury trial. Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules requires that a party makes a demand for a jury trial and timely serve such demand upon the opposing party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b). While failure to timely serve the jury trial demand "constitutes a waiver ... of trial by jury," Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(d), we have consistently held that waiver of such a fundamental right is "not lightly to be inferred." Gargiulo v. Delsole, 769 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir.1985). Nor have we required that the jury demand be technically perfect or unequivocal on the face of the pleadings. Gargiulo, 769 F.2d at 78-79 ( ). Moreover, the pleadings for pro se plaintiffs alleging civil rights violations are treated with greater liberality. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam) ( ).
In filing his complaint, Favors duly filled out the civil cover sheet on his pro se complaint form and checked the "Yes" box next to "Jury Demand." The civil cover sheet, of course, is merely an administrative aid to the court clerk, and is therefore not typically considered part of a litigant's pleading papers. But here, appellant failed to serve, as he might have, the civil cover sheet in timely fashion on appellees. Only the complaint was served and it contained no mention of or reference to a jury demand. A timely served civil cover sheet on which the "Jury Demand" box is checked can, without more, constitute a proper jury trial demand, see Winant v. Carefree Pools, 118 F.R.D. 28, 29 (E.D.N.Y.1988), but a civil cover sheet that has not been served with the complaint naturally gives no notice of a jury demand necessary to meet the requirements of Rule 38(b). See Moores v. Greenberg, 834 F.2d 1105, 1108 (1st Cir.1987) ( ); Pinemont Bank v. Belk, 722 F.2d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1984) (); Wall v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 718 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir.1983) ( ); Omawale v. WBZ, 610 F.2d 20, 21-22 (1st Cir.1979) (per curiam) ( ); Biesenkamp v. Atlantic...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Turner v. Mitchell Pontiac, Inc., Civ. No. H-90-484 (AHN).
...argued that her request on the civil cover sheet constitutes a timely request entitling her to a jury trial, citing Favors v. Coughlin, 877 F.2d 219, 229 (2d Cir.1989) and Winant v. Carefree Pools, 118 F.R.D. 28, 29 (E.D.N.Y.1988); and that the court should exercise its discretion, pursuant......
-
Shaver v. Astrue
...aid to the court clerk, and is therefore not typically considered part of a litigant's pleading papers.” Favors v. Coughlin, 877 F.2d 219, 220 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 7 (defining pleadings to include, inter alia, complaint but not civil cover sheet). The plaintiff alter......
-
Ayling v. Crosson
...the court clerk, and is therefore not typically considered part of a litigant's pleading papers.' ") (quoting Favors v. Coughlin, 877 F.2d 219, 220 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)); Crowe v. Lynch, No. 08 cv 2171 JM (JMA), 2009 WL 250913, at *1 n. 3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2009) ("The court notes t......
-
Retreat LLC v. Chisolm
...the court clerk, and is therefore not typically considered part of a litigant's pleading papers.' ") (quoting Favors v. Coughlin, 877 F.2d 219, 220 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)); Crowe v. Lynch, No. 08 cv 2171 JM (JMA), 2009 WL 250913, at *1 n. 3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2009) ("The court notes t......