Ramos v. Annucci

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 20, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-06916·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IVAN RAMOS, Plaintiff, 23-CV-6916 (CS) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE COMMISSIONER ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al., Defendants. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”), brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants denied him his right to participate in a Jumah prayer service on April 14, 2023, at Sing Sing.1 Plaintiff sues the Acting 0F Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), in his official capacity; Sergeant Bermann Joseph; John Doe, Officer in Charge; and John Doe, Escorting Officer. By order dated September 8, 2023, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). As set forth below, the Court (1) directs service on the Acting Commissioner of DOCCS and Sergeant Bermann Joseph; (2) directs the New York State Attorney General to assist Plaintiff in identifying the two John Doe correction officers; (3) denies Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to request pro bono counsel; and (4) refers Plaintiff to the New York Legal Assistance Group Clinic.

1 On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint (ECF 9) is the operative pleading. DISCUSSION A. Order of Service 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.2 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 1F (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 Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci and Sergeant Bermann Joseph through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms (“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 two 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

(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.

2 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. B. John Doe Defendants 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 amended complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the DOCCS to identify the two John Doe Defendants named in the amended complaint: (1) the officer in charge of Plaintiff’s housing unit on April 14,

2023; and (2) the escorting officer for Jumah services on April 14, 2023. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of the DOCCS, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each defendant 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 second amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The second amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the amended complaint. A second amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, the Court will screen the second amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the

Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named John Doe defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. C. Request for Pro Bono Counsel Plaintiff has filed a motion for the Court to request pro bono counsel. (ECF 3.) The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and Plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. I cannot conclude at this stage that the claims are likely to have merit, so Plaintiff’s motion for counsel (ECF 3) is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. D. New York Legal Assistance Group 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 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 directed to issue summonses for Acting Commissioner Annucci and

Sergeant Joseph, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for these defendants, deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service, and mail Plaintiff an information package. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to the New York State Attorney General’s Office at: Managing Attorney’s Office, 28 Liberty Street, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10005. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. (ECF 3.) Copies of the NYLAG Clinic’s flyer, retainer, intake form, and second amended complaint form are attached to this order. SO ORDERED.

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

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

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

Related

Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)