Murray v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 5, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-03758·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: Robert Murray, a/k/a Leviticus Bofnet DATE FILED:__ 06/05/2024 Lucfer, 1:24-cv-03758 (JGLC) (SDA Plaintiff, (

. ORDER OF SERVICE -against- TT

City of New York, et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: Pro se Plaintiff, who currently is a pretrial detainee housed in West Facility on Rikers Island, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging at least seven claims that seventeen Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights when he was detained at various facilities on Rikers Island and at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center on June 7, 2023; September 4, 2023, September 12, 2023; October 12, 2023; October 24, 2023;1 October 30, 2023; and March 10, 2024.2 (Compl., ECF No. 1, PDF pp. 2-10.) By Order, dated May 25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.? (5/25/24 Order, ECF No. 4.)

* Plaintiff avers that paperwork may indicate October 25, 2023, instead of October 24, 2023. (Compl. at PDF p. 8.) * While Plaintiff supplies four occurrence dates in the Complaint, based on the narrative Plaintiff provided, additional relevant dates are provided. (See generally Compl.) 3 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).

DISCUSSION A. Waiver Of Service The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify the New York City Department of

Correction (“DOC”) and the New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (the “Law Department”), of this Order. The Court requests that the City of New York; Dept. Hamuton; DOC Correction Officer (“C.O.”) Philogene, Shield No. 8360; C.O. Dawkins, Shield No. 7198; Capt. Toliver, Shield No. 1291; C.O. Monagan, Shield No. 12320; C.O. Hasangjekaj, Shield No. 2071; C.O. Tomasik, Shield No. 19746; Payne, Shield No. 140; C.O. Pratt; and Captain Banks4

waive service of a summons in accordance with Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. B. Valentin Order For C.O. Jane Doe 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 DOC to identify the Jane Doe Correction Officer whom Plaintiff alleges used a chemical agent on him on October 24, 2023.5 (Compl. at PDF p. 8.)

It is therefore ordered that the Law Department, which is counsel for and agent of the DOC, must ascertain the identity and badge number of the John and Jane Does whom Plaintiff

4 Plaintiff includes Captain Banks in the case caption on the Complaint, but does not provide any specific allegations against Captain Banks. (See Compl. at 1.) However, Captain Banks is not listed on the ECF docket. Thus Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to list Captain Banks as a Defendant on the ECF docket. 5 Plaintiff also names five John Doe Correction Officers as defendants. Because Plaintiff does not allege facts describing how these officers were personally involved in the events giving rise to his claims and he provides no information that would allow the DOC to identify them, the Court declines to issue a Valentin order as to these Defendants at this time. seeks to sue here and the address where each Defendant may be served.6 The Law Department is further ordered to confirm the identifies and badge numbers of the other Defendants that Plaintiff has identified herein. The Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff

and the Court, by letter filed to the ECF docket, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. Within thirty (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 asking Defendant to waive service once again. C. Local Civil Rule 33.2 Local Civil Rule 33.2 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 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,

6 If the Doe Defendant is a current or former DOC employee or official, the Law Department should note in the response to this Order that an electronic request for a waiver of service can be made under the e- service agreement for cases involving DOC defendants, rather than by personal service at a DOC facility. If the Doe Defendant is not a current or former DOC employee or official, but otherwise works or worked at a DOC facility, the Law Department must provide a residential address where the individual may be served, which may be filed under seal. Defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendants must quote each request verbatim.’ CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify DOC and the Law Department of this Order. The Court requests that the City of New York; Dept. Hamuton; C.O. Philogene, Shield No. 8360; C.O. Dawkins, Shield No. 7198; Capt. Toliver, Shield No. 1291; C.0. Monagan, Shield No. 12320; C.O. Hasangjekaj, Shield No. 2071; C.O. Tomasik, Shield No. 19746; Payne, Shield No. 140; C.O. Pratt; and Captain Banks waive service of summons. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order and the complaint to the Law Department at: 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this action. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York June 5, 2024 List A, Qann STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

? \f Plaintiff would like copies of these discovery requests before receiving the responses and does not have access to the website, Plaintiff may request them from the Pro Se Intake Unit.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s).) AMENDED COMPLAINT -against- under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Jury Trial: O Yes oO No (check one) Ci CD

(dn the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). Ifyou cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in Part I. Addresses should not be included here.) I. Parties in this complaint: A. List your name, identification number, and the name and address of your current place of confinement. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.

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

Murray v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Murray v. City of New York (Murray v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related