Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department
- Rom
- 7:19-cv-07336-NSR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Pena v. Jane Doe, Judge Román ordered service steps for Juan Pena’s constitutional-rights case and help identifying an unnamed doctor.
Juan Pena, Robert Morton, Jr., and the unidentified physician referred to as “Jane Doe, M.D.”
What happened
Juan Pena v. Jane Doe, M.D. and Robert Morton, Jr. concerns Juan Pena’s claims that prison officials violated his federal constitutional rights. Pena is incarcerated and is representing himself without a lawyer; he seeks money damages under a federal civil-rights law.
The court directed service of the case on Robert Morton, Jr. through the U.S. Marshals Service and extended the service deadline to 90 days after a summons is issued. Because the doctor named as “Jane Doe, M.D.” was not identified, the court ordered the New York Attorney General to find her identity and service address.
Judge Nelson S. Román ordered Pena to file a third amended complaint naming the doctor within 30 days after receiving the identification information. The court did not decide whether Pena’s constitutional claims were valid, and it denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department · No. 7:19-cv-07336-NSR
- Rom
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
Juan Pena, who is incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, appeared without a lawyer and asserted that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. He seeks damages from Robert Morton, Jr., identified as the superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility, and “Jane Doe, M.D.,” an unidentified female physician employed at Downstate. The court construed the second amended complaint as bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional-rights violations by state actors.
The court had previously allowed Pena to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding that way, the court concluded that the court and the U.S. Marshals Service should handle service of process—the formal delivery of the summons and complaint to a defendant.
Service on Robert Morton, Jr.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Morton, complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form with Morton’s service address, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The court extended the time to serve Morton until 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Pena should request an extension of time. Pena was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Identifying “Jane Doe, M.D.”
The court stated that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying an unnamed defendant. It found that Pena had provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the doctor: she was a female physician employed by that agency at Downstate who examined Pena during April or June 2019 as part of a medical assessment.
The court ordered the New York Attorney General, as the attorney and agent for the department, to determine the doctor’s identity and service address and provide that information to Pena and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Pena must file a third amended complaint naming the doctor. That complaint will replace, rather than supplement, his earlier complaints. The court stated that it would screen the new complaint and, if necessary, direct service on the newly identified defendant.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Román ordered the Clerk of Court to mail the order and related materials to Pena, issue and arrange service of a summons for Morton, and send the order and second amended complaint to the New York Attorney General. The court did not rule on the merits of Pena’s constitutional claims. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal from this order.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.