Rodriguez v. Collado
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:19-cv-03694
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rodriguez v. Collado, Judge Seibel ordered service on B. Furco and extended the service deadline without deciding the claims.
Pedro Rodriguez, B. Furco, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order also directed notice to the New York Attorney General and required Rodriguez to report address changes.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Collado, Pedro Rodriguez alleges that correctional officials failed to provide adequate medical care and denied him a visit with his son while he was confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility. He brought the case under a federal civil-rights law and was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront.
The court identified B. Furco, a registered nurse, as the nurse named in Rodriguez’s complaint and added her as a defendant. Because Rodriguez was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue the paperwork and serve Furco. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to send the order and amended complaint to the New York Attorney General and to arrange service on Furco. The court also required Rodriguez to report address changes, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Rodriguez’s underlying claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Collado · No. 7:19-cv-03694
- Cathy Seibel
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
Pedro Rodriguez, who was incarcerated at Gouverneur Correctional Facility when the order was issued, sued Jaifa Collado, Leslie Carey, John Doe, Jane Doe, and B. Furco under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, while confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility, the defendants failed to provide adequate medical care and denied him a visit with his son. The court had previously allowed Rodriguez to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
At a December 13, 2019 pre-motion conference, the court directed the defendants to identify the nurse described in Rodriguez’s complaint. The defendants identified that nurse as B. Furco, R.N., and Rodriguez amended his complaint to add Furco as a defendant.
Service on B. Furco
Because Rodriguez was authorized to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Furco. The court stated that Rodriguez could not have served the summons and amended complaint until the court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered a summons issued. It therefore extended the time for service until 90 days after the summons is issued. The court stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Rodriguez should request an extension of time.
Court’s directions
The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Furco, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service. It also directed the Clerk to mail Rodriguez a copy of the order and an information package, and to send the order and amended complaint to the New York Attorney General.
The court required Rodriguez to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of Rodriguez’s medical-care or visitation claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.