Lee v. Korobkova
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-10311
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Lee v. Korobkova, Judge Briccetti ordered service and John Doe identification but did not decide the claims’ merits.
Joseph Lee, the seven named defendants, the unidentified John Doe defendant, the listed Jane Doe defendants, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court, and the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
What happened
Lee v. Korobkova concerns Joseph Lee’s pro se lawsuit against correctional, medical, and rehabilitation personnel. Lee, who was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility, brought claims under the civil-rights law known as Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the seven named defendants and extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. It directed the New York State Attorney General’s Office to identify the emergency-room doctor referred to as John Doe, after which Lee must file an amended complaint naming that person. The court said it could not currently help identify the Jane Doe defendants because the complaint did not provide allegations or identifying information about them.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued an order of service, directed the Clerk of Court to send the required materials, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not resolve whether Lee’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Korobkova · No. 7:20-cv-10311
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
Joseph Lee, who was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law. He named Yelena Korobkova, Judith Camara, Eve M. Simmons, Ariel Escobar, Diane Hinton, Dr. Gandham, William F. Keyser, John Doe, and Jane Does as defendants. The opinion states that the court had previously granted Lee permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service on named defendants
Because Lee was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the deadline for service to 90 days after the summons is issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It stated that Lee should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms, issue a summons, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Dr. Gandham, Judith Camara, Diane Hinton, Ariel Escobar, Eve M. Simmons, William F. Keyser, and Yelena Korobkova. Lee was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change.
John Doe defendant
The court found that Lee had provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the emergency-room doctor who treated him on August 29, 2019, at Albany Medical Center. The court ordered the New York State Attorney General’s Office, identified as counsel and agent for that department, to determine the doctor’s identity and service address and provide that information to Lee and the court within 60 days.
Lee must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendant within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct service on the newly identified defendant.
Jane Doe defendants and disposition
The court stated that Lee listed Jane Does in the caption but did not make allegations about any Jane Doe in the body of the complaint or provide information that would allow those defendants to be identified. The court therefore could not assist in identifying any Jane Doe defendant at that time.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and information materials to Lee, send the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and provide an amended-complaint form. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. This order addressed service and defendant identification; it did not decide the merits of Lee’s claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.