Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 17, 2020·No. 7:19-cv-07336-NSR·Unknown

Opinion

SUNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 8/17/2020 _ JUAN PENA Plaintiff, -against- 7:19-CV-7336 (NSR) JANE DOE, M.D.; ROBERT MORTON, IR., ORDER OF SERVICE Superintendent, Downstate Correctional Facility, Defendants. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Juan Pena, who is currently incarcerated in the Bare Hill Correctional Facility, appears pro se and asserts claims that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. He seeks damages, and sues (1) Robert Morton, Jr., the Superintendent of the Downstate Correctional Facility, and (2) “Jane Doe, M.D.,” an unidentified female physician employed at Downstate. The Court construes Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as asserting claims under 42 US.C. § 1983. By order dated February 3, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).' The Court directs service on Defendant Morton, and directs the Attorney General of the State of New York to provide Plaintiff and the Court with the identity and service address of Defendant “Jane Doe, M.D.” DISCUSSION A. Service on Defendant Morton As 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. See Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 123 n.6 (2d

' 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).

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 a summons and the second amended complaint on Defendant Morton until the Court reviewed the second amended complaint and ordered that a summons be issued for Defendant Morton. The Court therefore extends the time to serve Defendant Morton until 90 days after the date that a summons is issued for him. If the second amended complaint is not served on Defendant Morton 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 Defendant Morton 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 Defendant Morton. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for Defendant Morton, and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service on Defendant Morton. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so. B. Defendant “Jane Doe, M.D.” 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 second amended complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) to identify Defendant “Jane Doe, M.D.” –

a female physician employed by DOCCS at the Downstate Correctional Facility who conducted a physical examination of Plaintiff in that facility during April 2019 or June 2019, in course of conducting a medical assessment of Plaintiff. 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 identity of Defendant “Jane Doe, M.D.,” and the address where she 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 a third amended complaint in which he names the newly identified defendant. The third amended complaint will replace, not supplement, Plaintiff’s original, amended, and second amended complaints. A third

amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint, the Court will screen it and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete a USM-285 form with the address for the newly identified defendant and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on her 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 a summons for Defendant Morton, (2) complete a USM-285 form with the service address for Defendant Morton, (3) and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on Defendant Morton to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order and the second

amended complaint to the Attorney General of the State of New York at 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. A third amended complaint form is attached to this order. 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 DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS Robert Morton, Jr., Superintendent Downstate Correctional Facility 121 Red Schoolhouse Road P.O. Box 445 Fishkill, New York 12524-0445 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CV. Write the full name of each plaintiff. (Include case number if one has been assigned) THIRD AMENDED against: COMPLAINT (Prisoner) Do you want a jury trial? 0mNd—MN L1Yes LINo

Write the full name of each defendant. If you 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 above must be identical to those contained in Section IV.

NOTICE The public can access electronic court files.

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

Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department (Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department) — 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)