Connelly v. Dep’t Corr. & Cmt. Supervision

Background

Daniel Connelly, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants denied him medical treatment for a serious condition caused by a fractured screw left in his back after reconstructive back surgery. The alleged denial of treatment occurred between 2022 and 2024 at Sing Sing, according to the order. Connelly is representing himself and had already been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Connelly was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare U.S. Marshals Service forms for Dr. Frederick Parker and Dr. Razia Ferdous. The court directed the Marshals Service to serve those defendants. The order states that if service is not completed within 90 days after a summons is issued, Connelly should request additional time. It also requires Connelly to notify the court of any address change.

Identification of Unnamed Defendants

The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York State Attorney General to help identify “John Doe 1,” a radiologist at Sing Sing; “John Doe 2,” DOCCS’s Chief Medical Officer during the relevant period; the “Doe Company” that provided the surgical hardware; and other correctional officers or employees involved in the alleged denial of medical treatment. The Attorney General must provide the identities and service addresses to Connelly and the court within 60 days of the order and must provide a service address for Dr. Gurell.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Connelly must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and may later direct service on the newly named defendants.

Prisoner Discovery

The court stated that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. That rule requires certain defendants in prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered interrogatories and document requests. The order states that responses must be served within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim.

Dismissal of DOCCS

The court dismissed Connelly’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS under the Eleventh Amendment. Eleventh Amendment immunity generally prevents states, and state agencies that function as arms of a state, from being sued in federal court unless the state has waived that protection or Congress has removed it. The court concluded that DOCCS had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted § 1983. The order does not decide whether Connelly’s medical-treatment allegations are true or whether the individual defendants violated his rights.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against DOCCS, ordered service on Parker and Ferdous, directed the Attorney General to identify the unnamed defendants and provide Gurell’s service address, and required an amended complaint after that information is supplied.

Note on the Order’s Wording

The order’s discovery section refers to “Defendant Murphy” when discussing the required responses, but its conclusion states that Parker and Ferdous must comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. The opinion does not explain this discrepancy.