USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT casaexivevnne SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED:_1/8/2024 PHILLIP TAYLOR SR., Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-10324 (JHR) NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT; POLICE OFFICER YESENIA RENGEL OF 44 ORDER OF SERVICE PRECINCT; JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER; NYC HEALTH+HOSPITALS/JACOBI KIRK ROBINSON, Defendants. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with a traffic stop and subsequent trip to New York City Healtht+Hospitals/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx on November 20, 2020. By Order dated November 29, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. The Court directs service on the Individual Defendants Police Officer Yesenia Rengel and Jacobi Hospital employee Kirk Robinson. For the reasons discussed below, the Court also dismisses all claims except Plaintiff’s claims against Rengel and Robinson in their individual capacities. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); see Livingston v.
Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). 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) (cleaned up). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits: To state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Id. at 678. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible—not merely possible—that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. DISCUSSION A. New York Police Department Plaintiff’s claims against the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“All actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he NYPD is a non-suable agency of the City.”); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). Here, Plaintiff has attempted to assert a claim against the NYPD. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against NYPD.
B. Unidentified “John Doe” Police Officer “Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant.” Williams v. City of New York, No. 23-CV-2700 (JPO), 2023 WL 3511431, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2023) (citing Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997)). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the New York City Law Department and the NYPD to identify the John Doe police officer assigned to the NYPD’s 44th Precinct who was involved in the events in the complaint that Plaintiff states occurred in Bronx County, beginning at approximately 10:30 p.m. on November 21, 2020 and served as Officer Rengel’s partner on that day. ECF No. 1 at 4. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the NYPD, ascertain the identity
and badge number of the unidentified “John Doe” police officer whom Plaintiff seeks to sue, as well as the addresses where he or she may be served. The New York City Law Department 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 newly identified 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 newly named defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those defendants to the U.S. Marshals Service. C. 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.1 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 Police Officer Yesenia Rengel and New York City Health+Hospitals/Jacobi Hospital employee Kirk Robinson through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for Defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT casaexivevnne SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED:_1/8/2024 PHILLIP TAYLOR SR., Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-10324 (JHR) NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT; POLICE OFFICER YESENIA RENGEL OF 44 ORDER OF SERVICE PRECINCT; JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER; NYC HEALTH+HOSPITALS/JACOBI KIRK ROBINSON, Defendants. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with a traffic stop and subsequent trip to New York City Healtht+Hospitals/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx on November 20, 2020. By Order dated November 29, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. The Court directs service on the Individual Defendants Police Officer Yesenia Rengel and Jacobi Hospital employee Kirk Robinson. For the reasons discussed below, the Court also dismisses all claims except Plaintiff’s claims against Rengel and Robinson in their individual capacities. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); see Livingston v.
Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). 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) (cleaned up). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits: To state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Id. at 678. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible—not merely possible—that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. DISCUSSION A. New York Police Department Plaintiff’s claims against the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“All actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he NYPD is a non-suable agency of the City.”); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). Here, Plaintiff has attempted to assert a claim against the NYPD. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against NYPD.
B. Unidentified “John Doe” Police Officer “Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant.” Williams v. City of New York, No. 23-CV-2700 (JPO), 2023 WL 3511431, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2023) (citing Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997)). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the New York City Law Department and the NYPD to identify the John Doe police officer assigned to the NYPD’s 44th Precinct who was involved in the events in the complaint that Plaintiff states occurred in Bronx County, beginning at approximately 10:30 p.m. on November 21, 2020 and served as Officer Rengel’s partner on that day. ECF No. 1 at 4. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the NYPD, ascertain the identity
and badge number of the unidentified “John Doe” police officer whom Plaintiff seeks to sue, as well as the addresses where he or she may be served. The New York City Law Department 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 newly identified 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 newly named defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those defendants to the U.S. Marshals Service. C. 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.1 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 Police Officer Yesenia Rengel and New York City Health+Hospitals/Jacobi Hospital employee Kirk Robinson through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for 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 Defendants. If the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the date 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 the plaintiff bears the 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.
1 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 complaint until after the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that the summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date summonses are issued. D. Referral to New York Legal Assistance Group Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (“NYLAG”) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or operated by,
the court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this Order. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the New York City Police Department. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is instructed issue summonses for Police Officer Yesenia Rengel and Kirk Robinson and to 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. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order and the complaint to the New York City Law Department at: 100 Church Street, New York, N.Y. 10007.
Finally, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. 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 v. 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: January 8, 2024 New York, New York
United States District Judge
DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES
Police Officer Yesenia Rengel 44th Precinct 2 East 169th Street Bronx, N.Y. 10452 Kirk Robinson New York City Health+Hospitals Jacobi Hospital 1400 Pelham Parkway Bronx, New York 10461 Y | A G Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys. New York MEE Legal Assistance Group Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Incarcerated Civil Litigants in Federal District Court
e NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in The Clinic Can: Southern District of New York is a free legal staffed by attorneys, law students, and « Assist with amending complaints and respondin; to assist those who are representing motions to dismiss; or planning to represent themselves, «= Represent litigants for settlement purposes and, incarcerated litigants, in civil lawsuits in limited circumstances, for depositions; Southern District of New York federal court, = Assist with written discovery; habeas cases. The clinic is not part of or « Recruit pro bono counsel for depositions and tris by the court. and en if a litigant has consulted with Clinic staff, - Assist with oppositions to summary judgment. they retain other counsel and that counsel . . . : Clinic staff cannot assist with habeas cases « a notice of appearance, they remain oe criminal matters. are responsible for doing 1s □□ connection with the case; NYLAG may also be unable to assist if it determines must still submit all court papers to the a its professional legal judgement, that (i) you have Intake Unit, located in Room 105 of the Daniel . ss refused to cooperate with the Clinic’s counsel or foll Moynihan Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, wes □□ . ' ; the Clinic’s advice; (ii) any assistance would be York, New York, or by following the court’s . J 1 @! L a unreasonably difficult for NYLAG to carry out; or (ii for filing via email as a pro se litigant. . . . your case is or will become frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, or without merit. the Clinic: the clinic and request a copy of our retainer, please call (212) 659-6190 and leave a message or to us at the following address: NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants Thurgood Marshall Federal Courthouse Room LL22 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 mail a signed retainer back to the clinic at the above address. Once the paperwork is received, clinic will contact you. It may take up to two weeks. Disclaimer: The information contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel, nor does it constitute advertising or a solicitation.
New York MEN Legal Assistance Group LEGAL CLINIC FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LIMITED SCOPE LEGAL ASSISTANCE RETAINER AGREEMENT retain the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) to provide you with limited scope legal assistance its Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York (Clinic) under the terms set forth below. I. LIMITS OF ASSISTANCE The Clinic agrees to provide only limited scope legal assistance in connection with your matter. This means that: @ remain a self-represented (pro se) litigant and are responsible for all aspects of your case. NYLAG is not your attorney of record in this matter. In the event that you are or become a party to a case in the Southern District of New York or any other forum, NYLAG will not enter an appearance or otherwise act on your behalf without expressly agreeing to do so and entering into a separate signed agreement with you. NYLAG has no obligation to enter into any such agreement. NYLAG has sole discretion to determine the specific type of services provided. These services may include providing advice and counsel about your case, explaining court orders and procedures, reviewing and commenting on your drafts, assisting with drafting, and discussing strategy. e This retainer covers an initial consultation only. NYLAG can stop assisting you with this matter at any time for any reason consistent with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. NYLAG has not agreed to represent or assist you on any other matter in the future. If NYLAG does agree to any representation on another matter, then a separate signed retainer agreement will be necessary. @ You may request but are not guaranteed subsequent appointments. NYLAG will only provide assistance on subsequent appointments if it provides you with confirmation to you of such assistance, via email or otherwise, with such additional assistance governed by the terms of this agreement, including that the assistance is for that consultation only and that NYLAG has sole discretion to decide whether it will provide any additional future consultations. You are responsible for and must meet all deadlines in your case, regardless of whether you are able to have an appointment with the Clinic. II. FREE ASSISTANCE, NON-ATTORNEY PROVIDERS, AND COMPETENCY does not charge for this assistance. You may be assisted by law students and/or paralegals under the supervision of an attorney consistent with the Rules of Professional Responsibility. NYLAG’s assistance does guarantee success or any particular outcome but that NYLAG will provide competent assistance.
Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you are free to stop receiving NYLAG’s limited scope assistance at any time. NYLAG may stop providing limited assistance at its sole discretion consistent with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. If NYLAG chooses to stop providing limited assistance, it will provide notice by email, mail, or phone.
IV. CONFIDENTIALITY
NYLAG will take all reasonable steps to maintain any information you provide as confidential.
V. REVIEW AND CONSENT
By signing and writing today's date below, you indicate that you: have read and understand this agreement; consent to the terms of this agreement; and understand the possible risks and benefits of proceeding with limited scope assistance.
If you have questions or concerns, please indicate on this form and someone will arrange to speak with you.
________________________________ _________________ Signature Date
Once you have completed this form, please mail it and the completed demographic form to the New York Legal Assistance Group, Pro Se Clinic, 40 Foley Square, LL22, New York, NY 10007. ole Ow New York ME Legal Assistance Group Name Date of Birth
Facility
Identification # Email (if available)
How did you hear about our clinic? (Circle One) Pro Se Intake Office Order/Letter from the Judge Conference/Hearing with the Judge Pro Se Information Package Website Friend/Family Other
Ethnicity (Circle One) Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Caucasian African American Middle Eastern Decline to Answer African Caribbean Native American South Asian
Education Level (Circle One) Grade or Less GED 2-4 years of College/Vocational School Some high school College graduate Decline to Answer High school graduate Graduate degree
Gender:
SDNY Case Number:
Once you have completed this form, please mail it and the completed retainer to the New York Legal Assistance Group, Pro Se Clinic, 40 Foley Square, LL22, New York, NY 10007.
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? 0mNd—MN L1Yes LINo
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.
NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
Rev. 5/20/16
I. LEGAL BASIS FOR CLAIM State below the federal legal basis for your claim, if known. This form is designed primarily for prisoners challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement; those claims are often brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against state, county, or municipal defendants) or ina “Bivens” action (against federal defendants). L] Violation of my federal constitutional rights L] Other: II. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION Each plaintiff must provide the following information. Attach additional pages if necessary.
First Name Middle Initial Last Name
State any other names (or different forms of your name) you have ever used, including any name you have used in previously filing a lawsuit.
Prisoner ID # (if you have previously been in another agency’s custody, please specify each agency and the ID number (such as your DIN or NYSID) under which you were held)
Current Place of Detention
Institutional Address
County, City State Zip Code II. PRISONER STATUS Indicate below whether you are a prisoner or other confined person: L] Pretrial detainee L] Civilly committed detainee L] Immigration detainee L] Convicted and sentenced prisoner L] Other:
IV. DEFENDANT INFORMATION To the best of your ability, provide the following information for each defendant. If the correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are identical to those listed in the caption. Attach additional pages as necessary. Defendant 1: First Name Last Name Shield # Current Job Title (or other identifying information) Current Work Address County, City State Zip Code Defendant 2: First Name Last Name Shield # Current Job Title (or other identifying information) Current Work Address County, City State Zip Code Defendant 3: First Name Last Name Shield # Current Job Title (or other identifying information) Current Work Address
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 4: First Name Last Name Shield # Current Job Title (or other identifying information) Current Work Address County, City State Zip Code V. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Place(s) of occurrence:
Date(s) of occurrence: FACTS: State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were harmed, and how each defendant was personally involved in the alleged wrongful actions. Attach additional pages as necessary. INJURIES: If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment, if any, you required and received.
VI. RELIEF State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order. Vil. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law or by anonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. I understand that if I file three or more cases while Iam a prisoner that are dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, I may be denied in forma pauperis status in future cases. I also understand that prisoners must exhaust administrative procedures before filing an action in federal court about prison conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that my case may be dismissed if I have not exhausted administrative remedies as required. I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case.
Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.
Dated Plaintiff's Signature
First Name Middle Initial Last Name
Prison Address
Date on which | am delivering this complaint to prison authorities for mailing: