Smith v. Halstead

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 3, 2024·No. 7:24-cv-06855·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONNIE P. SMITH, Plaintiff, 7:24-CV-6855 (CS) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE SERGEANT ERIC HALSTEAD #039, et al., Defendants. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Donnie P. Smith, who is appearing pro se and is currently held in the Orange County Jail (“OCJ”), in Goshen, New York, brings this action asserting claims of violations of his federal constitutional rights. He seeks damages and injunctive relief against: (1) OCJ Correctional Sergeant Eric Halstead; (2) OCJ Correctional Officer Angelo Narcise; (3) OCJ Correctional Officer Elijah Ford; (4) OCJ Correctional Lieutenant Shaffer; (5) an unidentified “Jane Doe” nurse employed by Wellpath1 at the OCJ; (6) Dominick Piacente, a physician employed by Wellpath at the OCJ; (7) Mary Dollard, a nurse employed by Wellpath at the OCJ; and (8) the County of Orange. The Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, as well as state law. By order dated September 12, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) – that is, without prepayment of fees.2 The Court: (1) directs service on Halstead, Narcise, Ford, Shaffer, Piacente, Dollard, and the County of Orange; (2) directs

1 Wellpath appears to be a private entity that the County of Orange has hired to provide medical care to prisoners held in the OCJ. 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). Halstead, Narcise, Ford, Shaffer, and the County of Orange to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2; (3) directs counsel for Wellpath to provide Plaintiff and the Court with the identity and service address of the unidentified “Jane Doe” nurse defendant; and (4) and directs the Orange County Attorney and counsel for Wellpath to provide certain information to the Court no later

than October 17, 2023. DISCUSSION A. Service on Halstead, Narcise, Ford, Shaffer, Piacente, Dollard, and the County of Orange Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on assistance from the Court and the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service.3 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see 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 of the complaint, motion for the appointment of counsel, and the proposed order to show cause on Halstead, Narcise, Ford, Shaffer, Piacente, Dollard, and the County of Orange, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out USMS Process Receipt and Return forms (“USM-285 forms”) for each of those defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for each of those defendants, and deliver to the USMS all the paperwork necessary for the USMS to effect service of the complaint, motion for the appointment of counsel, and proposed order to show cause upon those defendants.

3Although 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 effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date that any summonses issue. If the complaint, motion for the appointment of counsel, and proposed order to show cause are not served on those defendants within 90 days after the date that summonses for those defendants have 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. B. Local Civil Rule 33.2 Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires particular defendants in certain types of prisoner cases to respond to specific, court-ordered discovery requests, applies to this action. Those discovery requests are available on the court’s website under “Forms” and are titled “Plaintiff’s Local Civil Rule 33.2 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.” Within 120 days of the date of service, Halstead, Narcise, Ford, Shaffer, and the County of Orange must serve responses to those standard discovery requests. In their responses, those defendants must quote each request verbatim.4

C. The unidentified “Jane Doe” nurse defendant Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the Court in ascertaining an unidentified defendant’s identity and service address. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit Wellpath to ascertain the identity and service address of the unidentified “Jane Doe” nurse defendant; she is the Wellpath-employed nurse who was assigned to the OCJ clinic on April 19, 2024, who is not

4 If Plaintiff would like copies of those discovery requests before receiving the responses and does not have access to the website, Plaintiff may request them from the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. named as an identified defendant in this action but who is alleged to have been present when Plaintiff was brought to the OCJ clinic on that date. It is therefore ordered that counsel for Wellpath must ascertain the identity and service address of the unidentified “Jane Doe” nurse defendant. Counsel for Wellpath must provide this information to the Court and to Plaintiff

within 60 days of the date of this order. Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individual as a defendant and providing her service address. 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 it and, if necessary, issue an order directing service on the newly identified defendant. D. Request for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff has sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that provides in essence that he have no contact with certain correction officers and supervisors, who he alleges are harassing and retaliating against him and who he fears will cause him physical

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

Smith v. Halstead, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

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

Related

Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Reuters Limited v. United Press International, Inc.
903 F.2d 904 (Second Circuit, 1990)
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., v. the Clorox Company
241 F.3d 232 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)