Christman v. Kalimulina

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 16, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-07318·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SILVIANO CHRISTMAN, Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE -against- 21 Civ, 7318 (PGG) DOCTOR SVETLANA KALIMULINA, et al., Defendants.

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Silviano Christman, currently detained on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Defendants used excessive force against him, denied him medical attention, and removed his wheelchair. The Court also construes the Complaint as asserting claims under 42 USC. § 1983. On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).' (See Dkt. No. 4) As set forth below, the Court: (1) requests that Defendants Captain Fernandez, Captain Smith, Correction Officer McQueen, and Deputy Warden Miller waive service of

summonses; (2) orders service on Dr. Svetlana Kalimulina; (3) grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint to state facts regarding the personal involvement of Defendants Captain Ellebe, Dr. Hassan, Dr. Vale, Warden Walker, Warden Collins, Deputy Warden Chester, Correction Officer Boucaud, and Ross McDonald; and (4) notes that Local Civil Rule 33.2 is applicable to this case.

1 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).

LEGAL STANDARDS The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee ofa governmental entity, See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or secks 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 if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law authorizes dismissal on

any of the grounds cited above, district courts are “obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally.” Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). Thus, pro se complaints should be read with “special solicitude” and should be interpreted to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). DISCUSSION A. Waiver of Service of Summons The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that Defendants North Infirmary Command (NIC) Captain of Security Fernandez, NIC Captain Smith, Correction Officer McQueen, Badge #18538, and NIC Deputy Warden of Security Miller waive service of summonses. B. Defendant Kalimulina 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 summonses and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summonses and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that

summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summonses are 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 4(m).”). If service has not been made within 90 days from the date the summons is issued, and if Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to serve within that 90 days, this action

may be dismissed pursuant to Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Dr. Svetlana Kalimulina 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 this defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon this defendant. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes. Failure to do so

may result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff is advised that the Pro Se Office at the United

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

Christman v. Kalimulina, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Murray v. Pataki
378 F. App'x 50 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
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)
Tangreti v. Bachmann
983 F.3d 609 (Second Circuit, 2020)