Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 13, 2019

Jenkins v. Malin

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:19-cv-10419
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jenkins v. Malin, Judge Seibel ordered service on Shelton and Cruz, but not Malin because the complaint alleged no facts against her.

Who this affects

The order directly affected Theodore Jenkins, L. Malin, Shelton, and Cruz. Service was ordered for Shelton and Cruz but not for Malin at that time; the case was not dismissed as to Malin.

What happened

In Jenkins v. Malin, Theodore Jenkins, who is incarcerated and has no lawyer, sued three defendants under a federal civil-rights law and state law. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

The court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Shelton and Cruz. It did not order service on Malin at this time because the complaint alleged no facts about her and did not make her responsible merely because she supervised other people.

Judge Seibel did not dismiss the claims against Malin. Instead, the court said it would later consider whether Jenkins has additional facts that could be included in an amended complaint, and extended the service deadline for Shelton and Cruz.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jenkins v. Malin · No. 7:19-cv-10419
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Dec. 13, 2019

Background Theodore Jenkins, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against L. Malin, identified as Sing Sing’s Deputy Superintendent of Administration; Omar Shelton, identified as a Sing Sing Food Administrator; and Cruz, identified as a Sing Sing civilian cook. In an earlier order, the court allowed Jenkins to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

Ruling on Service and Malin The court ordered service on Shelton and Cruz. It did not order service on Malin at that time because the complaint alleged no facts concerning her. The court also stated that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because other people whom the supervisor oversees allegedly committed a constitutional violation. The court did not dismiss the claims against Malin; instead, it said it would later consider whether Jenkins had facts that could be included in an amended complaint to state a claim against her.

Service Instructions Because Jenkins was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Shelton and Cruz. The clerk was instructed to issue summonses, complete the required service forms with the defendants’ service addresses, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court extended the time to serve Shelton and Cruz until 90 days after their summonses were issued. The court also directed Jenkins to notify it of any address change and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.