Williams v. City of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-10537
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. City of New York (Williams 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 v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff, 22 Civ. 10537 (JHR) -v.- ORDER OF SERVICE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at West Facility on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights.1 By order dated December 16, 2022, 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 Dr. Duverne;3 (2) requests that the remaining named Defendants waive service of summons; (3) directs the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”) to assist in identifying the unidentified SRT team members described in the complaint; and (4) directs Defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2.

1 The Court received the original complaint on December 7, 2022. On January 18, 2023, the Court received an amended complaint, which Plaintiff mislabels as a “second amended complaint.” (ECF 8.) The amended complaint is the operative pleading. 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). 3 Plaintiff identified this Defendant as “Dr. Duvern.” The Court understands Plaintiff to be referring to Yves Duverne, PA, an employee of the Physician Affiliate Group of New York. DISCUSSION A. Service on Duverne 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.4 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 Defendant Yves Duverne 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 this Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon this Defendant. If the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is 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.

4 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 the summons and the amended complaint until the Court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered that the summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. B. Waiver of Service The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the DOC and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that the following Defendants waive service of summons: the City of New York; Wardens Jean Rene and Cortz; Security Captain Gaines (or Ganies); Captains Wigfall and Fernandez; Deputy Wardens Flemming, Jonelle Shivraj, Joanne Matos, Tiffany

Morales, and Lisa Barneby; Correction Officers Kevin Young, Andrew (or Andre) Hickson, Kevin White, Preston Ritter, and Graves; ESU Officers Richardson, Shield No. 254, and Rahman, Shield No. 11383; DOC Commissioner Louis Molina; and New York City Mayor Eric Adams. 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 the John Doe SRT Team members from the August 31, 2022, incident described in the amended complaint. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the DOC, ascertain the

identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served.5 The Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order.

5 If a 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 a 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. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The second amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the previous complaints. A second amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, the

Court will screen the second amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order asking Defendants to waive service. D. Local Civil Rule 33.2 Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires 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 service of the amended complaint, Defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendants must quote each request verbatim.6 CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is instructed to complete the USM-285 form with the address for Yves

Duverne and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is also directed to electronically 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: the City of New York; Wardens Jean Rene and Cortz; Security Captain Gaines (or Ganies); Captains Wigfall and Fernandez; Deputy Wardens Flemming, Jonelle Shivraj, Joanne Matos, Tiffany Morales, and Lisa Barneby; Correction

6 If Plaintiff would like copies of these discovery requests before receiving the responses and does not have access to the website, Plaintiff may request them from the Pro Se Intake Unit. Officers Kevin Young, Andrew (or Andre) Hickson, Kevin White, Preston Ritter, and Graves; ESU Officers Richardson, Shield No. 254, and Rahman, Shield No. 11383; DOC Commissioner Louis Molina; and New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

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

Related

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 v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2023.