Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2021

Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-04392
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, Magistrate Judge Moses ordered help identifying defendants and denied Cruz’s other requested relief.

Who this affects

Abraham Cruz, the unidentified and partially identified defendants he seeks to sue, and the United States Attorney acting for the Bureau of Prisons.

What happened

In Abraham Cruz v. Federal at I.C.M. Manhattan, N.Y., et al., Cruz alleged that he was assaulted and denied adequate medical care while held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. He also alleged that a psychiatrist improperly evaluated him. The court noted that the facility name and several defendant identities were unclear.

The court ordered the United States Attorney to identify the relevant medical providers, Cruz’s alleged cellmate, and nurse Maria Manning, and to provide service addresses if known. Cruz may file a Third Amended Complaint within 30 days after receiving that information. The new complaint will replace, rather than add to, his earlier complaints.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses stated that the court would screen any Third Amended Complaint and, if necessary, direct service on newly identified defendants. The court denied Cruz’s requests for additional relief, including reopening cases in other districts.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY · No. 1:20-cv-04392
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 8, 2021

Background

Abraham Cruz, who was incarcerated in Pennsylvania when the order was issued, sought to bring claims against unnamed officials at what he called the “I.C. Metro Manhattan,” including a director and a psychiatrist, and against a fellow prisoner identified as “Mr. Mannanlei.” The court found that no federal facility with that name existed in Manhattan and considered that Cruz might have meant the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC).

Cruz’s Second Amended Complaint named Suzanne Hastings, identified as the MCC warden during the relevant period, and Maria Manning, a registered nurse with shield number 51673. It also described an unnamed psychiatrist, “Mr. Mannanlein,” and three unidentified officers. Cruz stated that the events occurred at the MCC in October 2012. Although the sequence was unclear, he appeared to allege that the fellow prisoner assaulted him and that he did not receive adequate medical attention. He also alleged that the MCC psychiatrist performed an incomplete evaluation, which led to his transfer to another federal facility and a finding that he was incompetent.

Identification of defendants

The United States Attorney reported that the Bureau of Prisons could not locate a record of Cruz or an inmate named Mannanlei at the MCC and that the MCC did not contain the cell Cruz identified. Later information, including a 2012 letter from Warden Hastings, indicated that Cruz had been designated to the MCC on October 3, 2012. The letter’s envelope identified William J. Ryan, Ph.D., as being associated with the MCC Psychology Department, so the court stated that Cruz may have been treated or evaluated by Dr. Ryan.

Order

The court ordered the United States Attorney, acting for the Bureau of Prisons, to identify within 30 days: (1) the MCC psychiatrist or psychologist to whom Cruz complained about an assault; (2) any different MCC psychiatrist or psychologist who treated or evaluated him; and (3) the prisoner who was his cellmate in 2012, whose last name might be a variant of “Mannanlei.” The United States Attorney also had to verify the identity of Maria Manning and provide service addresses if known.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Cruz may file a Third Amended Complaint. That complaint will replace, not supplement, the earlier complaints. The court will screen it and, if necessary, issue an order directing service on newly identified defendants. The court denied Cruz’s requests for additional relief, including requests to reopen cases in other districts. The order did not decide the merits of Cruz’s underlying assault, medical-care, or evaluation allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-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.