Robert John Summa v. New York State Dept. of Corrections and Community Supervision; Nurse Administrator Amy Roycroft; P.A. G. Switz; Doctor Veronica Ruiz; John and Jane Doe Medical and Security Personnel
This text of Robert John Summa v. New York State Dept. of Corrections and Community Supervision; Nurse Administrator Amy Roycroft; P.A. G. Switz; Doctor Veronica Ruiz; John and Jane Doe Medical and Security Personnel (Robert John Summa v. New York State Dept. of Corrections and Community Supervision; Nurse Administrator Amy Roycroft; P.A. G. Switz; Doctor Veronica Ruiz; John and Jane Doe Medical and Security Personnel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DIT ULTIDINE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 3/3/2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT JOHN SUMMA, Plaintiff, -against- NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF 25-CV-5599 (NSR) CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; NURSE ADMINISTRATOR ORDER OF SERVICE AMY ROYCROFT; P.A. G. SWITZ; DOCTOR VERONICA RUIZ; JOHN AND JANE DOE MEDICAL AND SECURITY PERSONNEL, Defendants. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, brings this action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants provided him with constitutionally inadequate medical care.' By order dated August 21, 2025, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.” For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) and directs service on the remaining named Defendants.?
' By order dated January 2, 2026, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain severed Plaintiff’s claims arising at Attica Correctional Facility, transferred those claims to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint with respect to his claims arising at Woodbourne Correctional Facility. (ECF 7.) The court received Plaintiff's amended complaint on January 28, 2026. The amended complaint (ECF 8) is the operative pleading. ? 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). > Plaintiff also sues an unspecified number of “John and Jane Doe Medical and Security Personnel.” Because Plaintiff does not allege facts explaining how these individual defendants were involved in the events giving rise to his claims and does not provide sufficient information
STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). DISCUSSION A. Claims against DOCCS “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity[.]” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state
agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against DOCCS, which
that would allow DOCCS to identify them, the Court declines, at this time, to issue an order, pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), directing DOCCS to assist in identifying them. is an agency of the State of New York, are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). B. Service on remaining named defendants 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.4 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 Amy Roycroft, Genevieve Switz, and Veronica Ruiz 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 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 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.
4 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. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ai). The Clerk of Court is directed to issue summonses for Defendants Amy Roycroft, Genevieve Switz, and Veronica Ruiz, complete the USM-285 form with the address for these defendants, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. ee Dated: March 3, 2026 ee Poe White Plains, New York fo □□ NOT penne NELSON S. ROMAN United States District Judge
SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT
l.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Robert John Summa v. New York State Dept. of Corrections and Community Supervision; Nurse Administrator Amy Roycroft; P.A. G. Switz; Doctor Veronica Ruiz; John and Jane Doe Medical and Security Personnel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-john-summa-v-new-york-state-dept-of-corrections-and-community-nysd-2026.