Roundtree v. San Jose
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-02475-JMF-JW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Roundtree v. NYC, Judge Furman ordered service on Dr. John Mullins but declined to identify unnamed defendants.
Juel Roundtree must serve Dr. John Mullins within 90 days or request more time; Dr. Mullins is subject to service; the unidentified Jane and John Doe defendants were not identified at this stage.
What happened
In Juel Roundtree v. NYC, Juel Roundtree, who was incarcerated, sued over alleged constitutional-rights violations during his detention at Greene Correctional Facility. He represented himself and paid the filing fees.
The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Dr. John Mullins and required Roundtree to serve Mullins within 90 days. The court declined to help identify the unnamed Jane and John Doe defendants because Roundtree had not provided enough information about what they allegedly did.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Roundtree’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Roundtree v. San Jose · No. 1:19-cv-02475-JMF-JW
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Juel Roundtree, who was incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility, filed this self-represented lawsuit about events that allegedly occurred while he was detained at Greene Correctional Facility in Coxsackie, New York. The caption lists NYC; NY Health & Hosps; Corizon Medical; Medical Administrator Roberts; Dr. Arkady Cherchover; GRVC Dentist (John Doe #1); Dr. San Jose; Jane Does #1–5; and John Does #1–10 as defendants. The opinion states that Roundtree alleged violations of his constitutional rights and paid the required filing fees.
Service on Dr. John Mullins
The Clerk was directed to issue summonses for Dr. John Mullins. Roundtree was directed to serve Mullins with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that, if Roundtree did not serve Mullins or request more time within that period, it could dismiss the claims against Mullins under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
Unidentified Defendants
Roundtree’s amended complaint named Jane Does #1–5 and John Does #1–10 but did not describe what any of those defendants allegedly did or failed to do. A self-represented litigant may receive assistance from a court in identifying a defendant when sufficient information is provided. The court found that Roundtree had not supplied enough information to identify these defendants, so it declined at that time to issue such an identification order. The court stated that it could revisit the issue later if necessary.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk to mail Roundtree a copy of the order and an information package and to issue summonses for Dr. John Mullins. Judge Jesse M. Furman certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not reach the merits of Roundtree’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.