Lee v. Orange County Jail (Administration)

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 25, 2020·No. 7:20-cv-05021·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HIBAH T. LEE, Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE -against-

ORANGE COUNTY JAIL (ADMINISTRATION); 7:20-CV-5021 (PMH) “JOHN DOE” ORANGE COUNTY FACILITY;

JOHN “DOE” ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, Defendants. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently held in the Orange County Jail, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages. He sues: (1) the “Orange County Jail (Administration),” (2) “‘John Doe’ Orange County Facility,” and (3) “‘John ‘Doe’ Orange County Sheriff Office.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting claims under § 1983 and under state law. By order dated August 20, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the “Orange County Jail (Administration),” and directs the Clerk of Court to add the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia as defendants. The Court directs service on the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia, and directs those defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. The Court also directs the Orange County Attorney to provide to Plaintiff and the Court the identities (including badge numbers, if applicable) and service addresses of the unidentified “John Doe” defendants.

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). ANALYSIS A. The “Orange County Jail (Administration)” and Sergeant Dellapia Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 New York law, departments

which are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued.” Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 2 (“The term ‘municipal corporation,’ as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.”). Under Rule 21, courts have substituted as defendants municipalities for their agencies. See, e.g., Andradez v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 7:20-CV-2050, 2020 WL 3618410, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) (dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and the Orange County Jail, and substituting them with Orange County). Also, under Rule 21, courts have added an individual as a defendant in an action, though

that individual is not named as a defendant in the complaint, because he or she is mentioned “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, 2020 WL 1922691, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020); see Adams v. NYC Dep’t of Corrs., No. 19-CV-5909, 2019 WL 2544249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2019). Plaintiff sues the “Orange County Jail (Administration),” which appears to be an agency and, therefore, an arm of the County of Orange. Thus, it cannot be sued. And Sergeant Dellapia, though he or she is not named as a defendant, is the only identified person mentioned in the complaint who was allegedly involved and present during the underlying events. (Doc. 1, at 3-4). The Court therefore directs the Clerk of Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the “Orange County Jail (Administration),” and to add the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia as defendants to this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment of the action’s caption is without prejudice to any defenses the County of Orange or Sergeant Dellapia may wish to assert.

B. Service on the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia As 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. See 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 a summons and the complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint on the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued for the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia. The Court therefore extends the time to serve the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia until

90 days after the date that summonses are issued for those defendants. If the complaint is not served on the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia 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) (summary order) (“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).”). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms (“USM-285 forms”) for the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for the County of Orange and Sergeant

Dellapia, and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service on the County of Orange and Sergeant Dellapia. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so. 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.

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

Lee v. Orange County Jail (Administration), (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Lee v. Orange County Jail (Administration) (Lee v. Orange County Jail (Administration)) — 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)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.
118 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. New York, 2015)