Paul v. Capra

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 17, 2020·No. 7:20-cv-05154·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: BLONDINE PAUL, DATE FILED: _ 8/17/2020 Plaintiff, -against- MICHAEL CAPRA, Superintendent of Sing 7:20-CV-5154 (NSR) Sing Correctional Facility, LIEUTENANT WILLIAMS, of Sing Sing Correctional Facility; ORDER OF SERVICE INVESTIGATOR “ISAAC,” from the Office of Special Investigations, of the NYSDOCCS; “JOHN DOE”; “JANE DOE,” Defendants. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive relief. She sues (1) Michael Capra, the Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, (2) Lieutenant Williams, also assigned to Sing Sing, (3) Investigator Isaac of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (“DOCCS”) Office of Special Investigations, (4) “John Doe,” an unidentified high-ranking DOCCS official, and (5) “Jane Doe,” an unidentified Sing Sing official. By order dated July 30, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP’’). The Court directs service on Defendants Capra, Williams, and Isaac. The Court also directs the Attorney General of the State of New York to provide Plaintiff and the Court with the identities and service addresses of the unidentified defendants.

DISCUSSION A. Service on Defendants Capra, Williams, and Isaac As Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. See 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). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons and the complaint 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 on Defendants Capra, Williams, and Isaac until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued for those defendants. The Court therefore extends the time to serve those defendants until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued for those defendants. If the complaint is not served on Defendants Capra, Williams, and Isaac within that time, 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); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010)

(summary order) (“As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals’ failure to effect service automatically constitutes ‘good cause’ for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule 4(m).”). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Capra, Williams, and Isaac 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 each of those defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for Defendants Capra, Williams, and Isaac, and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service on those defendants. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if her address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so. B. Unidentified defendants Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying an unidentified defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint,

Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit DOCCS to identify the unidentified “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants. Those defendants include (1) the DOCCS official who affirmed, on administrative appeal, Defendant Capra’s initial 2017 decision to indefinitely suspend Plaintiff’s visitation privileges with regard to Plaintiff’s incarcerated brother, Hotson Neree, and (2) a female DOCCS official assigned to the Sing Sing Correctional Facility on June 22, 2017, who confined and searched Plaintiff on that date when Plaintiff attempted to visit her brother, Hotson Neree, at that facility. It is therefore ordered that the Attorney General of the State of New York, who is the attorney for and agent of DOCCS, must ascertain the identities (including badge numbers, if necessary) of each unidentified “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue

here and the address where each of those defendants 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, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in which she names the newly identified 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 it and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete USM-285 forms with the addresses for the newly identified defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those defendants to the U.S. Marshals Service. CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to (1) issue summonses for Defendants Capra, Williams, and Isaac, (2) complete USM-285 forms with the service addresses for those

defendants, (3) and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those defendants to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to the Attorney General of the State of New York at 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. An amended complaint form is attached to this order.1 The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2020 White Plains, New York

NELSON S. ROMÁN United States District Judge

1 In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties also are encouraged to consent to receive all Court documents electronically. A consent to electronic service form is available on the Court’s website.

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

Paul v. Capra, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Murray v. Pataki
378 F. App'x 50 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)