Farrow v. Cordez

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 12, 2024·No. 7:22-cv-05952·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUSTIN FARROW, Plaintiff, No. 22-CV-5952 (KMK) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE OFFICER CLARKE, et al., Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility and is proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc–2000cc-5. (See generally Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 38).) Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, excessive force and deliberate indifference, in violation of his constitutional rights, arising from incidents that he alleges occurred at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”). (See id. at 5–11.) By order dated August 10, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 (See Order (Dkt. No. 7).) On May 15, 2024, the operative Amended Complaint was docketed. (See Am. Compl.)

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). I. Discussion A. Service on Named Defendant Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to assistance from the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service in effecting service.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) (explaining that courts must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Correction Officers Clarke, Leslie, Murray, Schepis, R. Batolotti, and Sergeant Fan through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each Defendant. 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 Defendants. If the Amended Complaint is not served within ninety days after the date summonses are

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.

2Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within ninety days of the date a complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have effected service until the Court reviewed the Amended Complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until ninety days after the date any summonses issue. B. Identification of Doe Defendants 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 Amended Complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the New York State Department of Corrections and

Community Service (“DOCCS”) to identify the following defendants: (1) John Does 1–2, who were allegedly involved in a use-of-force incident at 11:45 a.m. on April 19, 2021, at Sing Sing’s A-block mess hall bridge; (2) Area Sergeant John Doe 3, who photographed Plaintiff’s injuries on April 19, 2021, and escorted him from the medical clinic to the segregated housing unit (“SHU”); (3) John Doe 4, a nurse who was present in the medical clinic at about noon on April 19, 2021, and who had Plaintiff sign the waiver of medical treatment; and (4) John Doe 5, who served Plaintiff his meals while he was in the SHU, beginning on April 23, 2021, during Ramadan. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of DOCCS, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom

Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where that Defendant may be served. The New York State 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 a second amended complaint naming the John Doe Defendant(s). That amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original Complaint and the Amended 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 named John Doe Defendants and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. C. Automatic Discovery 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 Amended Complaint, Defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendants must quote each request verbatim.3 II. Conclusion The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail: (1) a copy of this Order and an information package to Plaintiff; and (2) a copy of this Order and the Amended Complaint to the New York State Attorney General at: 28 Liberty Street, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10005. The Clerk of Court is further asked to issue summonses for Correction Officers Clarke,

Leslie, Murray, Schepis, R. Batolotti, and Sergeant Fan, complete the USM-285 form with the addresses for Defendants, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. The Parties are advised that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this Action. A “Second Amended Complaint” form is attached to this Order.

3 If Plaintiff would like copies of these discovery requests before receiving the responses and does not have access to the website, Plaintiff may request them from the Pro Se Intake Unit. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2024 White Plains, New York ft KENNETH M. KARAS United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT

Correction Officer Clarke Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, NY 10562-5442 Correction Officer Leslie Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, NY 10562-5442 Correction Officer Murray Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, NY 10562-5442 Correction Officer Schepis Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, NY 10562-5442 Correction Officer R.

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

Farrow v. Cordez, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Farrow v. Cordez (Farrow v. Cordez) — 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)