Khan v. Maginley-Liddie

Background

Shahab Khan, who is incarcerated at Greene Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while he was in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction. The operative pleading is the amended complaint Khan filed on June 23, 2025.

The court had previously allowed Khan to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. That permission allowed him to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process, although the opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Service of process

The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that New York City Department of Correction Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie and Rikers Island Chief Medical Officer Ross McDonald waive service of summons.

For Papnna Rabchaera, Cassia Gravesande, Nupur Dandawata, Ridhwan Y. Baba, Vishal Deepack, Jared Dublin, and Theresa Tuyet-Phuyong Tran, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service.

Because Khan is proceeding without prepaying fees, the court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summonses are issued. The court stated that Khan should request an extension if service is not completed within that period. It also required Khan to notify the court in writing of any address change and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

John and Jane Doe defendants

Khan also described alleged events at Otisville and Green Haven Correctional Facilities involving unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The court stated that Khan had not named those individuals as defendants and had not provided enough facts for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify them.

The court granted Khan leave to file an amended complaint naming those defendants and supplying identifying facts. The court explained that the new amended complaint would completely replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint, so Khan would have to repeat any facts or claims from the existing complaint that he wanted to preserve.

Disposition

The court ordered the service-related steps described above and granted Khan leave to file an amended complaint concerning the events at Otisville and Green Haven. The order did not decide the merits of Khan’s deliberate-indifference allegations.