Davis v. The Department of Corrections

Background

By an order dated December 13, 2019, the court gave Plaintiff James Davis, III 60 days to file an amended complaint. Davis then asked for an extension. He explained that he needed more time to identify individual defendants and to determine whether he could sue the Westchester County Department of Corrections and Correct Care Solutions.

Amendment instructions

The earlier order dismissed the Department of Corrections because it lacked capacity to be sued under New York law. The clerk was directed to replace that entity in the caption with Westchester County. The court explained that Davis may bring against Westchester County the claims he had intended to bring against the Department of Corrections.

The court had not addressed Correct Care Solutions because Davis had not sued that entity. If Davis intended to sue Correct Care Solutions, he was instructed to name it in the caption of the amended complaint and state facts supporting each claim against it.

The earlier order also allowed Davis to name individual defendants who were allegedly involved in the events underlying his claims. If he did not know an individual's name, he could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in the caption and body of the amended complaint, while providing identifying details such as the person's position, work date, location, and shift. The court stated that, at a later stage, a district judge might assist in identifying those defendants.

Ruling

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon granted Davis an additional 30 days from January 29, 2020, to file an amended complaint. The clerk was directed to mail him a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

This was a procedural order about amending the complaint and appeal status; it did not decide the underlying claims.