Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2020

Megginson v. The State of New York

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:19-cv-07583
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Megginson v. New York, Judge Karas ordered service on five officers in Megginson’s alleged prison-assault case and denied appeal fee-waiver status.

Who this affects

Michael E. Megginson and the five corrections-officer defendants identified for service—Sergeant Soto and Correction Officers Delovic, Berrio, Jasmin, and Amaro. New York State and the state corrections department had previously been dismissed from the case.

What happened

Michael E. Megginson, who is representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that corrections officers assaulted him at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in violation of the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The court had previously dismissed New York State and the state corrections department from the case because of legal immunity.

The court directed the Clerk to prepare service forms and summonses so federal marshals could serve Sergeant Soto and Correction Officers Delovic, Berrio, Jasmin, and Amaro. The opinion notes that Megginson’s amended complaint named Soto, Delovic, Jasmin, and Amaro but omitted Lewis; the service instructions nevertheless included Berrio and did not include Lewis.

Megginson must ensure service within 90 days after the summons is issued, request more time if needed, and notify the court of any address change. Judge Kenneth M. Karas also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Megginson v. The State of New York · No. 7:19-cv-07583
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Aug. 5, 2020

Background

Michael E. Megginson filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He alleges that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by assaulting him while he was an inmate at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

Megginson originally named New York State, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Sergeant Soto, and Correction Officer J. Lewis. In an earlier order, the court directed the Clerk to dismiss New York State and the department based on sovereign immunity, which generally protects states and certain state entities from being sued in federal court. The court also directed service on Soto and Lewis and directed the New York State Attorney General to identify seven unnamed officers allegedly involved in the assault.

The Attorney General identified Correction Officers Delovic, Berrio, Jasmin, and Amaro and provided a service address for each. Megginson later filed an amended complaint naming Soto, Delovic, Jasmin, and Amaro, while omitting Lewis.

Order

To allow service, the court instructed the Clerk to complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms for Soto, Delovic, Berrio, Jasmin, and Amaro. The Clerk was also instructed to issue summonses and give the Marshals Service the paperwork needed to serve those defendants.

The court stated that Megginson is responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summons is issued and for requesting an extension if necessary. It also required him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the case may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

This order addressed service and related case administration; it did not decide whether the alleged assault violated the Eighth Amendment. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.