Williams, Jr. v. City of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 2, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-01083
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams, Jr. v. City of New York (Williams, Jr. v. City of New York) 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.

Bluebook
Williams, Jr. v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff, 21-CV-1083 (JPC) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently detained at the George R. Vierno Center (“GRVC”) on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated February 25, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 DISCUSSION A. 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. 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 summonses and complaint 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 the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued.

1 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). The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date 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 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 New York City Health + Hospitals (“H+H”) and Physician Affiliate Group of New York (“PAGNY”) Physician Assistant, Larry Blackmore 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. B. Waiver of Service The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that the following Defendants waive service of summons: • City of New York • Chief of the Department of Correction (“DOC”) Hazel Jennings, DOC General Counsel Heidi Grossman, and DOC Division Chief Becky Scott; • GRVC Wardens Sherma Dunbar, Jean Rene, Tiffany Morales, Joanne Matos, and Assistant Deputy Wardens LaCroix (Shield #1361), Carter, and Loius; • Security Chief Kenneth Stokes, Deputy Warden of Security Jonnel Shivraj, Security Captains Benard Mathis, and Ballah (Shield #1219);

• Captains Vallejo (Shield #924), Smith (Shield #1222), Williams (Shield #1266), Peters (Shield #423), Blake (Shield #89), Islam (Shield #1743), Carter (Shield #1092), Le Fleur (Shield #377), Palmer-Campbell (Shield #257), Moodie (Shield #593), Law (Shield #85), and Mevervich (Shield #1826); • ESU Captains Ferber (Shield #1224) and Simms (Shield #5131); and • Correction Officers Taylor (Shield #8644), Ritter (Shield #7994), Hickson (Shield #5395), Loiseau (Shield #1898), Adamchex (Shield #12359), K. Young (Shield #12268), White (Shield #8507), McNeil (Shield #12557), Dyches (Shield #14003), Reid (Shield

#8637), Edmonds (Shield #10909), Sherma (Shield #13535), Omiblu (Shield #17242), Quinnones (Shield #2315), Emebu (Shield #19297), Lawrence (Shield #10351), Drumwright (Shield #8667), Day (Shield #5761), Coulthurst, Graves, Sherman, Miller (Shield #8636), Ramirez (Shield #15685), Rodriguez (Shield #9665), Figurioa, Pirce (Shield #15102), Nezma (Shield #6774), and Sholink (Shield #13295). C. 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 the DOC to identify a John Doe ESU officer (Defendant #41). It is therefore ordered that the Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the DOC, H+H, or PAGNY must ascertain the identity and badge number of this John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served.2 Plaintiff also supplies sufficient information to permit H+H and PAGNY to identify (1) Mrs. V., a Jane Doe mental health clinician (Defendant #49); and (2) Dr. K., a John Doe mental health doctor (Defendant #50). It is therefore ordered that H+H or PAGNY must ascertain the identities of these

defendants and the addresses where they may be served. The Law Department, H+H, or PAGNY 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, or asking defendants to waive service of

summons. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.

2 If the Doe defendant is a current or former DOC employee or official, the Law Department should note in the response to this order that an electronic request for a waiver of service can be made under the e-service agreement for cases involving DOC defendants, rather than by personal service at a DOC facility. If the Doe defendant is not a current or former DOC employee or official, but otherwise works or worked at a DOC facility, the Law Department must provide a residential address where the individual may be served. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for H+H and Blackmore, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order.

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

Related

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams, Jr. v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-jr-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2021.