Price v. Annucci

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 4, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-06925·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TREVOR PRICE, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-6925 (CS) ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NYSDOCCS; ORDER OF SERVICE CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT B. JOSEPH; PATRICIA CHUMNEY OFFICER IN CHARGE; JOHN DOE ESCORTING OFFICER, Defendants. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in the Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”), brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq, alleging that on April 14, 2023, he was not allowed to attend a Jumah service. (ECF No. 10 at 5, 12-13.)1 This complaint was originally filed by thirty individuals incarcerated in Sing Sing who asked to proceed as a class and applied for pro bono counsel. See Brown v. Annucci, ECF 7:23-CV- 06056, 1 (CS) (“Brown”). By order dated August 7, 2023, the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain, in her capacity as Chief Judge of the court, severed the claims of each of the plaintiffs, directing the Clerk of Court is open a new civil action for each plaintiff, each as a new case, and noting that: each Plaintiff will ultimately need to allege his own set of facts detailing when the denial occurred, how he was affected, and what steps, if any, he took to challenge the denial. (ECF No. 1 at 3.)

1 Citations to ECF No. 10 refer to page numbers set by the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system. By order dated August 25, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. (See ECF No. 7.)2 DISCUSSION A. Unidentified “John Doe” Defendant The New York State Attorney General filed a letter dated November 21, 2023, in Brown, indicating that the unidentified “John Doe” Defendant described in the original complaint in that action as the “Jumah Service Escorting Officer” cannot be identified. See Brown, ECF 7:23-CV- 06056, 31. Because that defendant, who is also a defendant in this action, cannot be identified, the Court declines, at this time, to issue an order under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir.

1997) (a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant), seeking the identity of that defendant.. B. Service on DOCCS Acting Commissioner Annucci, Correctional Sergeant B. Joseph, and former Correction Officer Pamela Chumney 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.3 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). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Annucci, B. Joseph, and Chumney through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service

2 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). 3 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. Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for these defendants and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these defendants. If the amended complaint is not served on these defendants 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. C. New York Legal Assistance Group Plaintiff may consult the legal clinic in this judicial 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 paperwork is

received, it may take up to two weeks for the clinic to contact the litigant. Copies of the clinic’s flyer, retainer, and intake form are attached to this order. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue summonses for DOCCS Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci, Correctional Sergeant B. Joseph, and former Correction Officer Pamela Chumney, 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. Plaintiff is referred to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic. Copies of the clinic’s flyer, retainer, and intake form are attached to this order. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4, 2023 (Ath, Aaskek White Plains, New York CATHY SEIBEL United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

NYS DOCCS Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci The Harriman State Campus Albany, New York 12226-2050 Correctional Sergeant B. Joseph Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, New York 10562 Former Correction Officer Pamela Chumney C/O Deputy Counsel Mark Richter Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Office of Counsel The Harriman State Campus, Building 4 1220 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12226 Y | A G Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys. New York ME Legal Assistance Group Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Incarcerated Civil Litigants in Federal District Court

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

Price v. Annucci, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Price v. Annucci (Price v. Annucci) — 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)