Tolliver v. Jordan

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 6, 2020·No. 7:19-cv-11823·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERIC TOLLIVER, Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE -against- 19-CV-11823 (PMH) LIEUTENANT JORDAN; C.O. DEPALO; C.O. E.BONNELL; JOHN DOE #1; JANE DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JANE DOE #2, Defendants. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Sing Sing Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants transferred him to a new facility in retaliation for filing grievances. Plaintiff sues three correction officers at Sullivan County Correctional Facility, as well as John/Jane Doe Movement and Control officers at the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”). By order dated April 1, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). DISCUSSION A. Valentin Order 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 sufficient information to permit DOCCS to identify the two John/Jane Doe Movement and Control officers responsible for transferring Plaintiff from Sullivan Correctional Facility to Attica Correctional Facility, and then from Attica to Five Points Correctional Facility. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of DOCCS, must ascertain the identity of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the 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 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. B. Service on Identified 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. 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 v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 2 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 Lieutenant Jordan, Correction Officer

DePalo, and Correction Officer E. Bonnell 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 his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. 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 complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses

for Lieutenant Jordan, Correction Officer DePalo, and Correction Officer E. Bonnell and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect 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, 15th Floor, New York, New York 10005. An “Amended Complaint” form is attached to this order. 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

3 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: New York, New York May 6, 2020

PHILIP M. HALPERN United States District Judge

4 DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES Lieutenant Jordan Sullivan Correctional Facility 325 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 116 Fallsburg, NY 12733-0116 Correction Officer DePalo Sullivan Correctional Facility 325 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 116 Fallsburg, NY 12733-0116 Correction Officer E. Bonnell Sullivan Correctional Facility 325 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 116 Fallsburg, NY 12733-0116

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CVE Write the full name of each plaintiff. (Include case number if one has been assigned)

“against- COMPLAINT (Prisoner) Do you want a jury trial? ssssssss...0.0.0. 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.

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

Tolliver v. Jordan, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)