Opinion
22-CV-1189 (VEC)
03-08-2022
AMAURY URENA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; CAPTAIN PINES; CAPTAIN CLARKE; C.O. GORDON; ESU CAPTAIN JOHNSON; CAPTAIN CHMUT; D.W. JOHN DOE; C.O. JANE DOE; C.O. JOHN DOE, Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE
VALERIE CAPRONI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Defendants subjected him to excessive force and denied him adequate and timely medical attention. By order dated March 1, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).
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).
DISCUSSION
A. 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 Defendants the City of New York, Captain Pines, Captain Clarke, C.O. Gordon, Emergency Service Unit (ESU) Captain Johnson, and Captain Chmut waive service of summons.
B. Unidentified “Doe” defendants
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 alleges that the underlying events occurred in the Robert N. Davoren Center and the George R. Vierno Center. Plaintiff appears to supply sufficient information to permit the City of New York to identify: (1) the John Doe correction officer who sprayed Plaintiff with a chemical agent after 7:00 p.m. on January 7, 2022; (2) the Jane Doe correction officer who was in charge of the intake post after 7:00 p.m. on January 7, 2022; and (3) any other correction officer, captain, or member of the ESU who was involved in the events occurring between January 7, 2022, and January 14, 2022. (ECF 2 at 7-8.)
It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”), must ascertain the identity and badge number of each unidentified defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each of those defendants may be served. The Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order.
If any unidentified defendant is a current or former DOC employee or official, the New York City 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 any unidentified defendant is not a current or former DOC employee or official, but otherwise works or worked at a DOC facility, the New York City Law Department must provide a residential address where the individual may be served.
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 asking the newly named defendants to waive service.
C. 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 the date of this order, the identified defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, the identified defendants must quote each request verbatim.
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.
CONCLUSION
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. The Court requests that Defendants the City of New York; Captain Pines; Captain Clarke; Correction Officer Gordon; ESU Captain Johnson; and Captain Chmut waive service of summons.
The Clerk of Court is also 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.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff together with an information package.
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 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.