Alexander v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 19, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-00284·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ZION ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, 1:25-CV-0284 (RA) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Zion Alexander, who is currently held in the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, filed this action pro se, asserting claims of federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.1 He sues: (1) the City of New York; (2) “NYC Health & Hospitals/Correctional Health Services (Bellevue Hospital),” which the Court construes as NYC Health + Hospitals (“H+H”); (3) “Jhon Doe (Psy. D) #1,” an unidentified individual defendant the Court construes as a psychiatrist or other physician employed by H+H at NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue (formerly known as the Bellevue Hospital Center) (“Bellevue”); (4) “Jhon Doe (Psy. D) #2,” another unidentified individual defendant the Court construes as another psychiatrist or other physician employed by H+H at Bellevue; and (5) Correction Officer DeJesus, who appears to be assigned to the George R. Vierno Center (“GRVC”) on Rikers Island. The Court understands the complaint as asserting claims under Section 1983 and under state law. By order dated February 12, 2025, Judge Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.2 For the reasons set forth below, the

1 Plaintiff originally filed this action while held in the George R. Vierno Center, also on Rikers Island. He initially filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That court thereafter transferred the action to the Southern District. See Op. & Order, ECF No. 3. 2 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). Court adds, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “Adam” (a health-care provider who is assigned to the GRVC) and Correction Officers Jackson and Thompson (who are also assigned to the GRVC) as defendants in this action. The Court requests that the City of New York and Correction Officers DeJesus, Jackson, and Thompson waive service of summonses. The Court

directs service on H+H. The Court also directs counsel for H+H to provide Plaintiff and the Court with the full identities of “Adam” and of the two other unidentified individual psychiatrist/physician defendants described above, as well as their service addresses. DISCUSSION A. “Adam” and Correction Officers Jackson and Thompson Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 21”), the Court, on its own motion, “may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; see Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., 118 F. Supp. 3d 591, 618-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Rule 21 “afford[s] courts discretion to shape litigation in the interests of efficiency and justice.”). Under this rule, courts have added individual defendants in actions whether the complaint mentions them “throughout the body of the [c]omplaint” as involved in the underlying alleged events. George v.

Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., No. 7:20-CV-1723 (KMK), 2020 WL 1922691, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020); see Adams v. NYC Dep’t of Corrs., No. 1:19-CV-5009 (VSB), 2019 WL 2544249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2019). A court may also add a party to an action, under Rule 21, when it is clear that the plaintiff intended to name that party as a defendant, but inadvertently failed to do so. See Fullewellen v. City of New York, No. 1:21-CV-7219 (MKV), 2021 WL 4940984, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2021); see also Truncale v. Universal Pictures Co., 82 F. Supp. 576, 578 (S.D.N.Y. 1949) (“In so far as [Rule 21] relates to the addition of parties, it is intended to permit the bringing in of a person who, through inadvertence, mistake or for some other reason, had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable.”). Plaintiff does not name “Adam” and Correction Officers Jackson and Thompson as defendants. Because Plaintiff seems to assert claims against these individuals by making allegations against them, see Complaint 8–9, ECF No. 1, at 8-9, however, it appears that Plaintiff intended to name them as defendants in this action. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and his

allegations against these individuals, the Court reads Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting claims against these individuals. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to add as defendants in this action, under Rule 21, “Adam” and Correction Officers Jackson and Thompson. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses these individuals may wish to assert. B. The City of New York and Correction Officers DeJesus, Jackson, and Thompson The Court directs the Clerk of Court to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this Order. The Court requests that the following defendants waive service of summonses: the City of New York; Correction Officer DeJesus, who was assigned as Plaintiff’s suicide-watch officer between December 2 and 4, 2024, while Plaintiff was held in the GRVC; Correction Officer Jackson, who was assigned as Plaintiff’s suicide-watch officer on December 6, 2024, while Plaintiff was held in the GRVC; and Correction

Officer Thompson, who was present during Correction Officer Jackson’s assignment as Plaintiff’s suicide-watch officer on December 6, 2024 and while Plaintiff was held in the GRVC. C. Service on H+H Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on assistance from the Court and the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service.3 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers

3Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have effected service on H+H until the Court reviewed his Complaint and ordered that a summons be issued for H+H. The Court therefore extends the time to serve H+H until 90 days after the date that any summons issues for H+H. of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the USMS to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on H+H through the USMS, the Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to fill out a USMS Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for

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

Alexander v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Alexander v. The City of New York (Alexander v. The City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.
118 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Truncale v. Universal Pictures Co.
82 F. Supp. 576 (S.D. New York, 1949)