Ruiz v. Link

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 14, 2020·No. 7:20-cv-00235·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL RUIZ, Plaintiff, -against- LINK, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; J. REYES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; PATRICK SQUIRE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JOHN DOE #1, 20-CV-0235 (CS) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JOHN DOE #2, ORDER OF SERVICE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JOHN DOE #3, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JOHN DOE #4, CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DEBORAH MACDONALD, REGISTERED NURSE AT GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants, CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Elmira Haven Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that while he was incarcerated in Green Haven Correctional Facility, Defendants violated his constitutional rights, By order dated February 6, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).!

' 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).

DISCUSSION A. Service on Correction Officers P. Link, J. Reyes, and Patrick Squire; and on Registered Nurse Deborah MacDonald Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. 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 the summonses and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summonses and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that

summonses be issued, The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summonses are issued. If the complaint is not served 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

Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (“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 Correction Officers P. Link, J. Reyes, and Patrick Squire; and on Registered Nurse Deborah MacDonald 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 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. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if Plaintiffs address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. 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 complaint, Plaintiff supplies suflicient information to permit Green Haven Correctional Facility to identify the four John Doe correction officers involved in the April 6, 2019 assault. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney, who is the attorney for and agent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, must ascertain the identity of the four John Doe correction officers whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the addresses where these Defendants may be served. The New York State 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 naming the John Doe 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 the 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. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.

The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses. complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Correction Officers P. Link, J. Reyes, and Patrick Squire; and Registered Nurse Deborah MacDonald and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to New York State Attorney General at: 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. 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 vy. 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: © (i pa White Plains, New York (Litky hete ~——< CATHY SEIBEL tw United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

I. Correction Officer P. Link Green Haven Correctional Facility 594 Rt. 216 Stormville, New York 12582-0010 2, Correction Officer J. Reyes Green Haven Correctional Facility 594 Rt. 216 Stormville, New York 12582-0010 3, Correction Officer Patrick Squire Green Haven Correctional Facility 594 Rt. 216 Stormville, New York 12582-0010 4, Registered Nurse Deborah MacDonald Green Haven Correctional Facility 594 Rt. 216 Stormville, New York 12582-0010

ee i

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) AMENDED against: COMPLAINT (Prisoner} Do you want a jury trial? 0 CO Yes ONo

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,

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

Ruiz v. Link, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Ruiz v. Link (Ruiz v. Link) — 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)