McTerrell v. Doe

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 22, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-06661·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SEAN McTERRELL,

Plaintiff, No. 23-CV-6661 (KMK) v. ORDER OF SERVICE M.D. JOHN DOE, Fishkill Correctional Facility, NURSE CYBAUM, Fishkill Correctional Facility, SHU DR. JANE DOE, Fishkill Correctional Facility, M.D. GUZMAN, Sullivan Correctional Facility, M.D. AMED, Sullivan Correctional Facility, R.N. LACOSTA, Sullivan Correctional Facility, M.H.U. DOCTOR JANE DOE, Sullivan Correctional Facility, JOHN DOE, JOHN DOES 1-5, Downstate Correctional Facility,

Defendants.

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Groveland Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was incarcerated at various New York State correctional facilities, Defendants denied him the right to adequate medical care. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 7.) Plaintiff originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and by decision and order dated July 28, 2023, Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., of the Western District of New York, directed that: (1) Plaintiff’s claims arising out of his confinement at Five Points Correctional Facility proceed in that court; (2) the claims arising out of Plaintiff’s confinement at Marcy and Mid-State Correctional Facilities be severed and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York; and (3) the claims arising out of Plaintiff’s confinement at Fishkill, Sullivan, and Downstate Correctional Facilities be severed and transferred to this District. (See Dkt. No. 9.) Although Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees, in the Western District of New York, the severed claims transferred to this court constitute a new civil action. See Wausau Bus. Ins. Co. v. Turner Const. Co., 204 F.R.D. 248, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“[S]evered claims become entirely independent actions to be tried, and judgment entered thereon, independently.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). By order dated October 12,

2023, the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain, in her capacity as Chief Judge, therefore directed Plaintiff to either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit an IFP application and prisoner authorization, within 30 days, in order to proceed with this action. (See Dkt. No. No. 11.) Plaintiff complied with Chief Judge Swain’s October 12, 2023 order, and he filed an IFP application and a prisoner authorization on November 14, 2023. (See Dkt. Nos. 12, 13). By order dated November 15, 2023, Chief Judge Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP.1 (See Dkt. No. 14.) I. DISCUSSION A. Service on Fishkill Defendant Nurse Cybaum and Sullivan Defendants Dr. Guzman, Dr. Amed, and R.N. Lacosta 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

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). 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 amended complaint until the Court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date summonses are issued. . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (providing that 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 Nurse Cybaum, Dr. Guzman, Dr. Amed, and R.N. Lacosta 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 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 amended complaint (discussed below) 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. B. John/Jane 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 Complaint, Plaintiff supplies

sufficient information to permit the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the John Doe Doctor and Jane Doe SHU Doctor at Fishkill Correctional Facility, the MHU Jane Doe Doctor and John Doe Defendant at Sullivan Correctional Facility, and the John Doe Defendants at Downstate Correctional Facility involved in the alleged deprivations of Plaintiff’s rights while he was incarcerated in those Facilities. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John and Jane Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the addresses where those Defendants may be served. The New York State Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this Order. Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John and Jane Doe 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 named John and Jane Doe Defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. Il. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to issue summonses for Nurse Cybaum, Dr. Guzman, Dr. Amed, and R.N. Lacosta, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for these Defendants, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is further asked to mail a copy of this Order and the Complaint to the New York State Attorney General at: 78 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10007. Finally, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order and an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 22, 2023 (nf White Plains, New York KENNETHM. KARAS) United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

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

McTerrell v. Doe, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

McTerrell v. Doe (McTerrell v. Doe) — 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)
Wausau Business Insurance v. Turner Construction Co.
204 F.R.D. 248 (S.D. New York, 2001)