Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2021

Carter v. Akinyombo

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:21-cv-00872
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Carter v. Akinyombo, Judge Roman ordered service and defendant-identification steps but denied Carter’s request for counsel without prejudice.

Who this affects

James Anthony Carter Jr.; the named medical defendants A. Akinyombo, K. Ngbodi, and M. Baby (also known as Thomas); the unnamed John Doe defendants; the New York State Attorney General; and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Carter v. Akinyombo concerns James Anthony Carter Jr.’s pro se civil-rights lawsuit alleging that medical defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The opinion says Carter was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance.

The court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the three named defendants. It also ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify the three unnamed defendants and provide service information; Carter must then file an amended complaint naming them.

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Carter’s request for free legal counsel without prejudice to renewal later. The order addressed service and counsel, not whether Carter’s medical-care claims were legally valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carter v. Akinyombo · No. 7:21-cv-00872
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Mar. 1, 2021

Background

James Anthony Carter Jr., who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The named defendants are A. Akinyombo, K. Ngbodi, and M. Baby, also known as Thomas. The complaint also names three John Doe defendants. The court had previously allowed Carter to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, although the order notes that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Carter was allowed to proceed without paying the fee in advance, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service forms and summonses and deliver the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Akinyombo, Ngbodi, and Baby. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Carter should request an extension of time.

Identifying the Unnamed Defendants

The court found that Carter had provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the officials connected with the Central Office Review Committee who were asked to approve medical treatment for his degenerative osteoarthritis. The court ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify those officials and provide their service addresses to Carter and the court within 60 days.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Carter must file an amended complaint naming the John or Jane Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and may then direct preparation of service materials for the newly named defendants.

Request for Counsel

Carter asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. The court explained that it considers factors including the apparent merits of the case, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits, Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later.

Disposition and Effect

The order directed service on the three named defendants and required the identification and later naming of the Doe defendants. It denied Carter’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal. The opinion did not decide whether Carter’s deliberate-indifference claims would succeed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.