Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 22, 2020

Dawkins v. Copeland

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:17-cv-09926
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Section 1983Civil ProcedurePro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Dawkins v. Copeland, Judge Ramos dismissed claims against Cooper and Colon, ordered service on Grace, and requested limited pro bono counsel for discovery.

Who this affects

Edward C. Dawkins; defendants Deputy Warden Grace, Captain Cooper, Captain Colon, and Copeland; and the requested volunteer counsel. The claims against Cooper and Colon were dismissed with prejudice, Grace was ordered served, Copeland was directed to respond, and discovery was stayed until counsel appears.

What happened

In Dawkins v. Copeland, Edward C. Dawkins filed a second amended complaint concerning, among other things, the removal of a medical mattress from his cell. He also requested free volunteer legal representation.

Dawkins added allegations that Deputy Warden Grace knew or should have known about his serious medical conditions and the need for a medical mattress. He added no new allegations against Cooper or Colon. The court also noted that a claim against Copeland had survived an earlier motion to dismiss.

Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the second amended complaint against Cooper and Colon with prejudice, ordered service on Grace, and directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Dawkins for the limited purpose of discovery and settlement discussions. The court stayed discovery until counsel appears and directed Copeland and Grace to respond to the complaint on specified deadlines.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dawkins v. Copeland · No. 1:17-cv-09926
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
July 22, 2020

Background

The court previously dismissed claims against several defendants, dismissed claims against Deputy Warden Grace, Captain Cooper, and Captain Colon without prejudice, and allowed Dawkins to file another complaint against those three defendants. Dawkins then filed a Second Amended Complaint and requested pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer.

Dawkins proceeded without a lawyer. His claims concerning Grace, Cooper, and Colon arose from allegations about a cell search and the removal of a medical mattress despite his medical conditions. The opinion states that a claim against Copeland had survived an earlier motion to dismiss.

Claims Against Grace, Cooper, and Colon

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act's screening requirement for prisoner complaints against governmental entities or their officers and employees. At this stage, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court's subject-matter jurisdiction.

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on unconstitutional conditions of confinement, the court explained that a plaintiff must show both an objectively serious deprivation and deliberate indifference. For a pretrial detainee, deliberate indifference uses an objective standard: the official must have recklessly failed to take reasonable care to reduce a known or reasonably knowable excessive risk to health or safety.

The court held that Dawkins' Second Amended Complaint still did not state a claim against Cooper or Colon. It found no new allegations showing that either defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Dawkins' medical needs. The court therefore dismissed the complaint against Cooper and Colon with prejudice.

The court reached a different result as to Grace. Dawkins alleged that Grace knew or should have known about the serious medical conditions of people assigned to the Northern Infirmary Command, that his medical history had been transmitted there, and that Grace had been told about his back and neck injuries and need for a medical mattress before and after the mattress was removed. The court found that these allegations were not frivolous or malicious and suggested that Grace may have known or should have known about Dawkins' conditions. It ordered service of the Second Amended Complaint on Grace, who could answer, move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), or otherwise respond.

Request for Volunteer Counsel

The court granted Dawkins' request for the court to seek pro bono counsel for a limited appearance. It found that he met the requirements for considering such a request because the court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees, and his claim against Copeland had survived a motion to dismiss and therefore appeared likely to have substance.

The court also found that Dawkins' incarceration and reported difficulties accessing the law library and sending and receiving legal mail made investigating the case especially difficult. It concluded that volunteer counsel could help conduct discovery and promote a quicker and fairer resolution.

The requested representation was limited to discovery and settlement discussions. Counsel would not be required to respond to a motion seeking to end the case, including a possible motion to dismiss by Grace. Counsel could ask for an extension or request a broader role if such a motion were filed. The representation would end after discovery unless its scope were expanded.

Disposition

The court directed the clerk to seek limited pro bono counsel, requested that Grace waive service, and directed Copeland to respond to the Second Amended Complaint by August 5, 2020. Grace was directed to answer or otherwise respond within 21 days after waiving service. The court stayed discovery until volunteer counsel appeared, vacated the prior scheduling order, and directed the clerk to terminate the motions associated with the Second Amended Complaint and the request for counsel.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-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.