King v. White
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-04527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In King v. White, Judge Nathan ordered service steps and identification of unnamed defendants without deciding the constitutional claims.
Sharif King, the City of New York, Correction Officer White, the unnamed correctional defendants, and the New York City Law Department were affected by the service and defendant-identification directives.
What happened
King v. White concerns Sharif King’s claim that correctional officers and the City of New York violated his constitutional rights during transportation to court after he suffered a seizure. King said officers ignored his requests for medication and a seat belt, failed to obtain medical help, and did not investigate his later injury.
King filed the case without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, while noting that prisoners still must pay the full fee over time.
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the unnamed defendants and provide service information within 60 days. King must file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days after receiving that information; the order did not decide whether his claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- King v. White · No. 1:20-cv-04527
- Alison Nathan
- July 17, 2020
Background
Sharif King, who was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, filed a case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims that state or local officials violated constitutional rights. The defendants named in the complaint were the City of New York; Correction Officer White; Correction Captains John Doe #1 and John Doe #2; John Doe #3; and John Doe #4. The opinion identifies the unnamed defendants as New York City Department of Correction personnel or officials, including people assigned to the Manhattan Court Post and the Emergency Services Unit.
King alleged that on November 12, 2019, before transportation from Downstate Correctional Facility to a hearing at the Bronx County Supreme Court, he told John Doe #1 that he had epilepsy, frequently suffered grand mal seizures, and had not received his medication that day. He asked John Doe #1 to inquire about the medication and fasten his seat belt. King alleged that John Doe #1 refused, threatened to use pepper spray and drag him if he did not cooperate, and failed to obtain medical help after King had a seizure about 20 minutes into the trip. King alleged that he injured his back, arm, and shoulders and urinated on himself.
King further alleged that, after the van reached the Manhattan Detention Complex, the other defendants ignored his requests for medical attention and clean clothing. He alleged that a judge ordered medical staff to see him after he arrived at court. King also alleged that John Doe #2 failed to fasten his seat belt on the return trip, that he later required emergency hospital treatment for a serious ear injury he attributed to the trip, and that John Doe #4 did not investigate after King requested an investigation.
What the Court Ordered
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department about the order. It requested that the City of New York and Correction Officer White waive service of the summons.
Because King was proceeding without a lawyer, the court applied a rule requiring assistance in identifying an unnamed defendant. The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the Department of Correction to identify John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Correction Officer White, John Doe #3, and John Doe #4. The court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine each John Doe defendant’s identity, badge number, and service address and provide that information to King and the court within 60 days.
After receiving the information, King must file an amended complaint within 30 days naming the John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than add to, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, ask defendants to waive service. The order did not decide the merits of King’s constitutional claims.
Disposition
The court entered an order of service and directed the identification-related steps described above. It did not dismiss the case, enter judgment, or rule on whether the alleged constitutional violations occurred.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.