Brock v. Avanzado

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 9, 2019·No. 7:19-cv-05891·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERS OMLOALLN Fall VINCENT A. BROCK, a 7 | $7 Plaintiff, EPLY -against- 19-CV-5891 (VB) DR. AVANZADO; DR. PARIKH; RN ORDER OF SERVICE HAREWOOD; DR. ZIMMELUS; RN AWAKA; RN STEVENS; RN “M” (PHYSICIAN ASST,), Defendants.

VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Wende Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action alleging that, while he was incarcerated in Fishkill Correctional Facility, Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated June 25, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,”

Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Triestman y. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). DISCUSSION A. Service on Dr. Avanzado, Dr. Parikh, RN Harewood, Dr. Zimmelus, RN Awaka, and RN Stevens 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 the summons and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. If the complaint is not served 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 A(m).”).

To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Dr. Avanzado, Dr. Parikh, RN Harewood, Dr. Zimmelus, RN Awaka, and RN Stevens through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form

(“USM-285 form”) for each of these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue

summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these 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. B. RN “M” (Physician Assistant) 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 Attorney General to identify RN “M” (Physician Assistant). It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, shall ascertain the identity of the John Doe Defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where this Defendant may be served. The New York State Attorney General shall provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court by September 9, 2019. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe Defendant. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 form with the address for the named John Doe Defendant and deliver all documents

necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. . CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.

The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Dr. Avanzado, Dr. Parikh, RN Harewood, Dr. Zimmelus, RN Awaka, and RN Stevens, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to the New York State Attorney General at: 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. An “Amended Complaint” form is attached to this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a “written opinion” within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 9, 2019 | / | | White Plains, New York INCENT L. BRICCETTI United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

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

Brock v. Avanzado, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Brock v. Avanzado (Brock v. Avanzado) — 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)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)