Lee v. Department of Corrections

Background

Michael J. Lee brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He alleged that jail officials were failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19. The opinion states that Lee was incarcerated at the Vernon C. Bain Center and was proceeding without a lawyer.

Lee originally filed the complaint with 49 other detainees. On November 9, 2020, the court separated the matter into individual cases, leaving Lee as the only plaintiff in this case. In an earlier order, the court allowed Lee to proceed without paying filing fees at the outset. The opinion also notes that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time under the applicable statute.

Service of the Lawsuit

Because Lee was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Service is the formal delivery of the summons and complaint to notify defendants of the lawsuit.

For defendants Patsy Yang and Margaret Egan, the Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to complete service. Although the normal service period is 90 days after filing, the court extended Lee’s service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued because he could not serve the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued. The court told Lee to request an extension if service was not completed within that period.

For defendant Cynthia Brann, the Clerk was directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. The court requested that Brann waive formal service of the summons.

The court also instructed Lee to notify it in writing if his address changed and stated that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so. The Clerk was directed to mail Lee a copy of the order and an information package.

Disposition and Scope

The court entered an order arranging service of the complaint. It did not rule on the substance of Lee’s claim or determine whether any defendant violated his rights. The order was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.