Murphy v. Rodriguez

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 29, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-06998·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ADAM E. MURPHY, Plaintiff, -v.- 23-CV-6998 (KMK) ERT OFICER K. RODRIGUEZ, Badge #114; ORDER OF SERVICE ERT OFFICER PULLEN, Badge #474; ERT OFFICER PREVUKAJ, Badge #138; ORANGE COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL DEPT. WELLPATH, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained in the Orange County Jail, brings this pro se Action alleging that Defendants violated his federal civil rights. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) The Court construes the Complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights, as well as his rights under state law. (See id. at 3.) By order dated August 9, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. (Dkt. No. 4.)1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against “Orange County Jail Medical Dept. Wellpath,” (see Compl. 1), and directs the Clerk of Court to substitute Orange County as a Defendant; (2) directs service on Defendants; (3) directs Defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2; and (4) refers Plaintiff to the NYLAG Clinic.

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). STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of a complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). DISCUSSION A. “Orange County Jail Medical Dept. Wellpath” To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48–49 (1988). The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against “Orange County Jail Medical Dept.

Wellpath” because it is not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983 and is therefore not a proper defendant in a Section 1983 action. See Will v. Mich. Dep’ t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (finding that the state is not a “person” for the purpose of Section 1983 claims); Zuckerman v. Appellate Div., Second Dep’t Supreme Court, 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (finding that a court is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983); Whitley v. Westchester Cnty. Corr. Fac. Admin., No. 97-CV-420, 1997 WL 659100, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 1997) (finding that a correctional facility or jail is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and his intention to assert claims against Orange County, the Court construes the Complaint as asserting claims against Orange County and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this Action to replace “Orange County Jail Medical Dept. Wellpath” with Orange County. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21. This amendment is without

prejudice to any defenses Orange County may wish to assert. B. Service on Defendants 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. 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).2 To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants ERT Officer K. Rodriguez, Badge #114; ERT Officer Pullen, Badge #474; ERT Officer Prevukaj (or Prelvukaj), Badge #138; and Orange County 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

2 Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that summonses 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. (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is a 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.

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. 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 Complaint, Defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendants must quote each request verbatim.3 D. NYLAG Clinic Plaintiff may consult the legal clinic in this District that assists people who are parties in civil cases and do not have lawyers. The Clinic is run by a private organization called the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”); it is not part of, or run by, the Court (and, among

other things, therefore, cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit). To receive limited-scope assistance from the Clinic, Plaintiff may mail a signed retainer and intake form to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic at 40 Foley Square, LL22, NY, NY 10007. Once the paperwork is received, the Clinic will coordinate contact with the litigant. Once the

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

Murphy v. Rodriguez, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)