Evans v. Superintendent

Background

Clarence Evans, who is incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint concerning events on January 10, 2024. He alleges that, after he was involved in an encounter with another person, Officer Atkins sprayed chemical agent in his face and eyes without warning. Evans says Atkins then wrote a false misbehavior report stating that Evans threw closed-fist punches, although Evans says he only held the other person.

Evans also describes alleged conduct involving Bell, Reed, Wilson, Demelo, Jordan, Rodriguez, Sherman, Hutchins, Barlow, and four unidentified officers. His allegations concern the handling of a weapon found in his cell, alleged theft from his cell, disciplinary reports and proceedings, special-housing placement, access to evidence, and statements or actions by correctional officials. The opinion does not make final merits findings about these allegations.

Screening and service

Because Evans had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under the statute governing such cases. The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the United States Marshals Service with the materials needed to serve Officer Atkins, Bell, Reed, Wilson, Demelo, Jordan, Rodriguez, and Sherman.

The court also ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify the names, badge numbers, and service addresses of John or Jane Doe defendants 1 through 3. The Attorney General was given 60 days to provide that information. The court stated that Evans must file a second amended complaint naming those defendants within 30 days after receiving the information, and it also granted Evans 60 days to file a second amended complaint containing additional facts concerning Hutchins and Barlow. The second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint, and the court would screen it before directing service on any newly identified defendants.

Dismissal of claims against certain defendants

The court held that Evans had not stated a claim against Hutchins, Barlow, and an unidentified assistant superintendent because he merely alleged that they “rubber stamped” a decision connected to the disciplinary reports. The court dismissed the claims against those three defendants for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The court also granted Evans 60 days to provide more detailed allegations, including what each defendant did, when and where the conduct occurred, the injuries allegedly suffered, and the relief sought.

The opinion contains an inconsistency about the unidentified defendant in this dismissal. Section C identifies that defendant as John Doe 4, while the conclusion says the dismissed unidentified defendant was John Doe 1. The court’s directions also refer to Doe defendants 1 through 3 for identification. This summary does not resolve that discrepancy.

Other rulings

The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires the defendants, within 120 days after service, to respond to specified discovery requests in this prisoner case.

The court directed the Clerk to mail Evans an information package and a copy of the order to the New York State Attorney General. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Evans permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.