Marcus Rogers v. The State of New York et al.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 2, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-03964·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARCUS ROGERS, Plaintiff, 1:26-CV-3964 (JMF) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE THE STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Marcus Rogers, who is currently incarcerated in the Green Haven Correctional Facility, brings this action pro se, asserting claims for damages for alleged violations of his federal constitution rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His claims arise from events alleged to have occurred while he was held in the West Facility (“WF”) and in the North Infirmary Command (“NIC”), which are both New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”) jails on Rikers Island. He sues: (1) the State of New York; (2) Correction Officer Fu; (3) Correction Captain Battle; and (4) “Nurse A.K.A. Ms. A.”(“Ms. A.”), who appears to be a nurse assigned to the NIC.1 The Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting claims of federal constitutional violations under Section 1983, as well as claims under state law. By order dated May 26, 2026, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).2 For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court drops the State of New York as a Defendant, and adds the City of New York, unidentified “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” WF Nursing Staff Defendants, and an unidentified “Jane Doe”

1 Plaintiff asserts claims against the individual Defendants in their individual and official capacities. (See ECF 1, at 2-3.) 2 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). Correction Officer Defendant as Defendants in this action, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 21”). The Court requests that the City of New York, Correction Officer Fu, and Captain Battle waive service of summonses. The Court also directs that the City of New York, Correction Officer Fu, and Captain Battle comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. The Court

further directs the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, as well as counsel for NYC Health + Hospitals (“H+H”) and counsel for the Physician Affiliate Group of New York, P.C. (“PAGNY”), to provide Plaintiff and the Court with the identities, services addresses, and, if appropriate, badge numbers, of Ms. A., the unidentified “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” WF Nursing Staff Defendants, and the unidentified “Jane Doe” Correction Officer Defendant. DISCUSSION A. Rule 21 Under Rule 21, 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) (Marrero, D.J.) (Rule 21 “afford[s] courts discretion to shape litigation in the interests of efficiency and justice.”). “In pro se actions, courts can and have, under Rule

21, dropped an institutional defendant when it is an improper defendant and, under that same rule, substituted that dropped defendant by adding the proper institutional defendant.” Hayes v. Westchester Med. Ctr., 7:25-CV-10273 (NSR), 2026 WL 412121, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2026). A court can, under Rule 21, “add[] individual defendants in actions whe[n] the complaint mentions them ‘throughout the body of the [c]omplaint’ as involved in the underlying alleged events.” Alexander v. City of New York, No. 1:25-CV-0284 (RA), 2025 WL 861377, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2025) (quoting George v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’ t of Corr., No. 7:20-CV- 1723 (KMK), 2020 WL 1922691, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020)). This includes adding 2 unidentified individual defendants. See, e.g., Koulibaly v. City of New York, 1:25-CV-7989 (KPF), 2025 WL 3268881, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2025). This reflects the intent of Rule 21. See Truncale v. Universal Pictures Co., 82 F. Supp. 576, 578 (S.D.N.Y. 1949) (Kaufman, D.J.) (“In so far as [Rule 21] relates to the addition of parties, it is intended to permit the bringing in of

a person who, through inadvertence, mistake or for some other reason, had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable.”). In asserting official-capacity claims against Correction Officer Fu and Captain Battle, who are DOC officers, arising from events alleged to have occurred in the NIC, which is a DOC jail, it is clear that Plaintiff meant to assert claims against the City of New York, rather than the State of New York, because the DOC is an agency of the City of New York, not of the State of New York. In addition, Plaintiff mentions, in his complaint: (1) the alleged inaction of unidentified nursing staff assigned to the WF on November 7, 2024, with respect to his attempts to seek medical attention on that date; and (2) the alleged failure of an unidentified Correction Officer, assigned to the NIC on February 24, 2025, to protect him and her injuring of him on that

date. (ECF 1, at 17, 19-20.) Accordingly, and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to drop the State of New York as a Defendant in this action and to add the City of New York, unidentified “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” Nursing Staff Defendants, and an unidentified “Jane Doe” Correction Officer Defendants as Defendants in this action, under Rule 21. The addition of these Defendants in this action is without prejudice to any defenses that these Defendants may assert in this action. B. The City of New York, Correction Officer Fu, and Captain Battle The Court directs the Clerk of Court to electronically notify the DOC and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that the City of New York, Correction 3 Officer Fu, and Captain Battle (Fu and Battle are assigned to the NIC) waive service of summonses and that the New York City Law Department respond as directed in the Valentin instructions discussed below. C. Local and Individual Rules 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 the date of entry of this order, the City of New York, Correction Officer Fu, and Captain Battle must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, these Defendants must quote each request verbatim.3 Moreover, all parties must familiarize themselves with the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, which are attached to this Order and available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Furman. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, a copy of

which is attached to this Order, all communications with the Court by a pro se party — including the aforementioned letter — should be filed with the Pro Se Intake Unit by either (1) emailing the communication as an attachment in PDF format to Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov (for instructions, see https://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/instructions-filing-documents-email); or (2) mailing the communication to the Pro Se Intake Unit, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500

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

Marcus Rogers v. The State of New York et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Marcus Rogers v. The State of New York et al. (Marcus Rogers v. The State of New York et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.
118 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Truncale v. Universal Pictures Co.
82 F. Supp. 576 (S.D. New York, 1949)