Cancel v. New York Health and Hospitals
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-07413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Frankie Cancel v. New York Health and Hospitals: Judge Woods ordered service on named defendants but dismissed claims against unidentified defendants without prejudice.
Frankie Cancel’s case will proceed toward service against HHC and the named individual defendants. His claims against John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-10 were dismissed without prejudice because they could not be identified from the complaint.
What happened
In Frankie Cancel v. New York Health and Hospitals, Frankie Cancel, representing himself, alleges that his employer discriminated against him because of race and sex and violated federal and state laws.
Because Cancel was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the named defendants. The court dismissed the claims against John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-10 without prejudice because the complaint did not provide enough information to identify them.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered summonses and service paperwork for the named defendants and directed the Clerk to mail Cancel an information package. The order did not decide whether Cancel’s discrimination or other claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Cancel v. New York Health and Hospitals · No. 1:25-cv-07413
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 13, 2025
Background
Frankie Cancel is proceeding without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He alleges that his employer discriminated against him based on race and sex. His claims invoke Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and other state law.
Cancel names the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, referred to as HHC, and individual employees Diana Novak, Virginia Fineran, Wilma Soto, Jennifer Hobbs, Tiffany L. Brown, Patricia Yang, Daina Begum, Kate O’Donovan-Cook, Nicole Phillips, Anieka Clayton, and John/Jane Does 1-10.
Service on Named Defendants
Because Cancel was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered assistance from the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the named defendants. The Clerk was instructed to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve HHC and the named individual defendants.
The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If the complaint is not served within that period, Cancel should request more time. The court also directed Cancel to notify it in writing of any address change and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
John and Jane Doe Defendants
The court found that the complaint did not provide enough information for HHC to identify the John and Jane Doe defendants. It therefore dismissed Cancel’s claims against John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-10 without prejudice. The order states that Cancel may reassert those claims with additional factual allegations in an amended complaint that he is permitted to file under the federal civil-procedure rules.
Disposition
The court dismissed without prejudice Cancel’s claims against John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-10. It ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and complete service forms for HHC and the named individual defendants, deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service, and mail Cancel an information package. The order addressed service and identification of defendants; it did not resolve the merits of Cancel’s discrimination, leave, or other claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.