Hassan v. Correction Officer Jane Doe

Background

Eslam Hassan, who was incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility, brought the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent—meaning they knowingly disregarded—his serious mental-health and medical needs, and that they used excessive force while he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.

The court had previously allowed Hassan to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, although the opinion noted that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee. The order applied the screening requirements for complaints filed by people proceeding without prepayment of fees and for prisoner complaints.

Rulings on Supervisory Defendants

Hassan named Warden Clayton Augustus and unidentified supervisors and commissioners. The court held that a person cannot be liable under § 1983 merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. Because Hassan appeared to rely on the defendants’ supervisory positions rather than alleging their personal involvement, the court dismissed his claims against Warden Clayton Augustus and the John and Jane Doe supervisors and commissioners for failure to state a claim.

Service and Unidentified Defendants

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 the City of New York; Captains Williams, Marral, and White; and Correction Officers Brown, Witkins, Black, Davis, Rodriguez #11007, John Doe #8724, Paul, and Atkins waive service of summons.

The court explained that a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to help identifying an unknown defendant, but Hassan had not provided enough information for the New York City Law Department to identify the Doe defendants. Hassan was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the order with more detailed information about each Doe defendant. If he provided enough information and stated claims against those defendants, the court said it would issue an order requiring assistance in identifying them.

Discovery

The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specific, court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants were required to serve responses to the standard requests within 120 days of the order and to quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Request for Counsel

Hassan applied for the court to request volunteer counsel. The court considered the relevant factors, including the apparent merits of the case, Hassan’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and his ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits, Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the application without prejudice to renewal later.

Disposition

The court dismissed Hassan’s claims against Warden Clayton Augustus and the John and Jane Doe supervisors and commissioners. It denied Hassan’s application for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. It also directed the service-waiver and discovery steps described above, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.