Louis v. Morley

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 27, 2023·No. 7:22-cv-10094·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BLED DSO BLED DOC #: KEVIN LOUIS, DATE FILED: 1/27/2023 Plaintiff, 22-CV-10094 (NSR) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE JOHN MORLEY, et al., Defendants. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility (“Woodbourme”), brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that medical staff at Woodbourne and Sing Sing Correctional Facility showed deliberate indifference to his medical needs. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.! As set forth below, the Court (1) directs service on Defendants Superintendent David Howard, Dr. Ruiz, Dr. Harris Baker, and Dr. Aaron Roth; (2) directs the New York State Attorney General, under Valentin vy. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), to identify the Nurse Administration, named as a John Doe Defendant; and (3) grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to allege facts in support of the claims he wishes to bring against Dr. John Morley, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer. The Court also denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause and his request that the Court appoint pro bono counsel.

' 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).

DISCUSSION A. Order of Service: Superintendent Howard, Drs. Ruiz, Baker, and Roth 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.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 Howard, Ruiz, Baker, and Roth 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 summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these Defendants. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the 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.

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 summonses and the 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 summonses are issued. B. Order to Identify Woodbourne Nurse Administrator 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 Supervision (“DOCCS”) to identify Woodbourne’s “Nurse Administrator.” It is therefore ordered

that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of the DOCCS, must ascertain the identity of this Doe Defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served. 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, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to add to the caption of the complaint the Doe Defendant’s real name, and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 form with the address for the named Doe Defendant and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. C. Order to Amend To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the

defendants’ direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Spavone v.N.Y. State Dep’ t of Corr. Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in the alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 solely because that defendant employs or supervises a person who violated the plaintiff’s rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.”). Rather, “[t]o hold a state official liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of the underlying constitutional violation directly against the official . . . .” Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 620 (2d Cir. 2020). Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing how Defendant John Morley was personally involved in the events underlying his claims. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants

him 60 days to file an amended complaint to allege facts in support of the claims he wishes to bring against Dr. Morley. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, asserting claims against this Defendant, the Court will dismiss the claims Plaintiff sought to bring against this Defendant, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is also granted leave to amend his complaint to include additional allegations regarding his (i) his medical treatment (or lack thereof); and (ii) any pain experienced by his condition. D. Order to Show Cause Plaintiff has filed an order to show cause requesting preliminary injunctive relief. To obtain such relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of his case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the

merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ.

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

Louis v. Morley, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

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

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Tangreti v. Bachmann
983 F.3d 609 (Second Circuit, 2020)