Akinlawon v. Polanco

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 3, 2021·No. 7:21-cv-02621·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AYOTUNJI AKINLAWON, Plaintiff, 7:21-CV-2621 (KMK) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE E.J. POLANCO, et al., Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Green Haven Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. He sues 23 defendants, 22 of which are members of the Green Haven staff; one of those 22 Green Haven staff members is an unidentified “John Doe/Jane Doe” defendant. In addition to the Green Haven staff members, Plaintiff sues the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Anthony J. Annucci. Plaintiff has filed with his complaint an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF 6), as well as a motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF 5). By order dated April 21, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 The Court directs service on the identified defendants and directs those defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. The Court also directs the Attorney General of the State of New York to provide the Court and Plaintiff with the identity, badge number (if applicable), and

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee, even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). service address of the unidentified “John Doe/Jane Doe” defendant. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. DISCUSSION A. Motion to appoint counsel The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent plaintiff’s motion for pro bono counsel include the merits of the case, the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the plaintiff’s

ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor [that] command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. And even if a court does believe that a litigant should have a free lawyer, under the IFP statute, a court has no authority to “appoint” counsel, but instead, may only “request” that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-10 (1989). Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess the merits of this action, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF 5) without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing an application for the Court to request pro bono counsel at a later date.

B. Service on the identified defendants Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that the summons and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint on the identified defendants until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued for those defendants. The Court therefore extends the time to serve the identified defendants with the complaint until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued for those defendants. If the complaint is not served on the identified defendants within that time, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682

F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals’ failure to effect service automatically constitutes ‘good cause’ for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule 4(m).”) (summary order). To allow Plaintiff to effect service of the complaint on the identified defendants through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms (“USM-285 forms”) for those defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for the identified defendants and deliver to the Marshals

Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service of the summonses and the complaint upon those defendants. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. C. Local Civil Rule 33.2 Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires defendants in certain types of prisoner cases to respond to specific, court-ordered discovery requests, applies to this action. Those discovery requests are available on the Court’s website under “Forms” and are titled “Plaintiff’s Local Civil Rule 33.2 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.” Within 120 days of service of the complaint, the identified defendants must serve responses to those standard discovery requests. In their responses, the identified defendants must quote each request verbatim.2 D. Unidentified “John Doe/Jane Doe” defendant Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies

sufficient information to permit the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) to identify the unidentified “John Doe/Jane Doe” defendant. That defendant is the Green Haven staff member who, on July 28, 2020, received a request from Plaintiff to be tested for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted diseases. It is therefore ordered that the Attorney General of the State of New York, who is the attorney for and agent of DOCCS, must ascertain the identity and badge number (if applicable) of the unidentified “John Doe/Jane Doe” defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here, and the address where that defendant may be served. The Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Akinlawon v. Polanco, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Akinlawon v. Polanco (Akinlawon v. Polanco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Murray v. Pataki
378 F. App'x 50 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)