Roundtree v. San Jose

Background

Juel Roundtree, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, Corizon Health, Inc., “Medical Administrator Roberts,” Dr. Arkady Cherchever, Dr. John Mullins, Dr. Jane San Jose, and various unnamed defendants. He alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, retaliation, malpractice, assault, and battery. The opinion identifies Roberts as an unknown person.

The City, New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, Corizon, Dr. Cherchever, Dr. Mullins, and Dr. San Jose moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(5) concerns inadequate service of the summons and complaint. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Roundtree also asked for more time to serve the defendants and requested permission to file another amended complaint.

Service of the complaint

The court concluded that service was improper as to every defendant except the City, which had waived service. Roundtree said that he sent the complaint and summonses to Dr. Mullins, Dr. San Jose, Dr. Cherchever, and Corizon by certified mail. The court explained that New York law permits service by first-class mail only when the required statements of service are included, and Roundtree had not served those defendants personally or by first-class mail. The opinion also states that Roundtree did not allege that he attempted service on New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation and had not served Roberts, whose identity remained unknown.

Although the court could have dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(5), it declined to do so because Roundtree was proceeding without a lawyer, the defendants had actual notice of the action, and the defendants did not claim prejudice from the improper service. The court extended the deadline to serve the amended complaint and summons on the moving defendants until 90 days after the date of the opinion and order.

The court directed New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, Corizon, Dr. Cherchever, Dr. Mullins, and Dr. San Jose to tell the court within 30 days whether they would waive service. If they declined, they had to provide service addresses and state whether they would accept electronic service. The court stated that it would direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them for Roundtree if necessary and would order the defendants to pay the costs of that service under Rule 4(d).

Pleading motion and proposed amendment

The court denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice to renewal by letter-motion. The opinion states that, after service or waiver of service, the defendants would have 30 days to state whether they wished to renew that motion. If they renewed it, the court would treat it as renewed and fully submitted on the existing briefs unless the court allowed additional papers.

The court also directed Roundtree to file, within 30 days, a letter explaining what he proposed to change in his amended complaint. He was directed to identify the facts and claims he wished to add, including facts he believed might address deficiencies raised by the motion. The court would decide whether to allow another amended complaint when addressing a renewed Rule 12(b)(6) motion, or by separate order if the defendants did not renew their service motion.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that: (1) the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) was denied; (2) the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was denied without prejudice to renewal by letter-motion; (3) Roundtree’s request for an extension of time to serve the defendants was granted; and (4) Roundtree was directed to provide reasons supporting his request to file another amended pleading. The court also directed the moving defendants to state whether they would waive service.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not decide whether Roundtree’s underlying medical-care, constitutional, retaliation, malpractice, assault, or battery claims are legally sufficient.