Daniel Connelly v. Dep’t Corr. & Cmt. Supervision (DOCCS), et al.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 5, 2025
Docket7:25-cv-07688
StatusUnknown

This text of Daniel Connelly v. Dep’t Corr. & Cmt. Supervision (DOCCS), et al. (Daniel Connelly v. Dep’t Corr. & Cmt. Supervision (DOCCS), et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daniel Connelly v. Dep’t Corr. & Cmt. Supervision (DOCCS), et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DANIEL CONNELLY,

Plaintiff, 25-CV-7688 (KMK) -v.- ORDER OF SERVICE DEP’T CORR. & CMTY. SUPERVISION (DOCCS), et al, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”), brings this pro se Action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants denied him medical treatment for a serious condition caused by a fractured screw left in his back following reconstructive back surgery. By Order dated September 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 As set forth in this Order, the Court orders service on Defendant Frederick Parker (“Parker”) and Defendant Razia Ferdous (“Ferdous”), and directs the New York State Attorney General to identify Defendant “John Doe 1,” a radiologist at Sing Sing, “John Doe 2,” DOCCS’ Chief Medical Officer during the time of the alleged incident, and the “Doe Company” that provided the hardware for Plaintiff’s back surgery, as well as all other correctional officers or employees involved in the alleged events, and to provide a service address for Defendant Gurell. The Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the Department of Corrections & Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) under the Eleventh Amendment.

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). DISCUSSION A. Service on Defendants Parker and Ferdous 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 on Defendants Parker and Ferdous.2 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).

To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Parker and Ferdous 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 these defendants. 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 Defendants Parker and Ferdous. If the Complaint is not served within ninety days after the date a summons is issued, 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). 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. Valentin Order

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

2 Although 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 served a summons and the Complaint on Defendant Murphy until the Court reviewed the Complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve Supervision (“DOCCS”) to fully identify John Doe 1, John Doe 2, the Doe Company, and any other unidentified correction officers or employees who were involved in the alleged denial of medical treatment to Plaintiff between 2022 and 2024 at Sing Sing. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of DOCCS, must ascertain the identities of John Doe 1, John Doe 2, the Doe Company, and of any other correctional officer or employee involved in the events alleged in the Complaint, as well as the addresses where those individuals

and company may be served. The Attorney General is also ordered to provide a service address for Dr. Gurell. 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 naming the newly identified individuals as defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original Complaint. An amended 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 forms with the addresses for the newly named defendants and to deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those individuals to the U.S. Marshals Service.

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, Defendant Murphy must serve responses to those standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendant Murphy must quote each request verbatim.3 D. Sovereign Immunity Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims against DOCCS must be dismissed because it is an agent of New York. “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . .” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state

agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. DOCCS has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for Defendants Parker and Ferdous, complete a USM-285 form with the address for these defendants, deliver all documents necessary to effect service on Defendants Parker and Ferdous to the U.S. Marshals Service, and mail Plaintiff an information package. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Order and the

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

Related

Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Gollomp v. Spitzer
568 F.3d 355 (Second Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daniel Connelly v. Dep’t Corr. & Cmt. Supervision (DOCCS), et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-connelly-v-dept-corr-cmt-supervision-doccs-et-al-nysd-2025.