Loving v. Superintendent
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-11135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Loving v. Superintendent, Judge Karas ordered service steps and identification of a doctor defendant without deciding Loving’s constitutional claims.
Franklin Loving, the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility, and the unidentified physician whom the New York Attorney General was ordered to identify; the Clerk of Court, U.S. Marshals Service, and New York Attorney General also received implementation duties.
What happened
In Loving v. Superintendent, Franklin Loving, who was incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, sued the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility and an unidentified physician for alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights. He represented himself and had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance.
The court extended the time to serve the Superintendent until 90 days after a summons is issued and directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to handle the service paperwork. The court also directed the New York State Attorney General to identify the physician who examined Loving when he entered Downstate in January 2019. Loving must file a second amended complaint naming that physician within 30 days after receiving the identifying information.
Judge Karas ordered these service and identification steps, directed the Clerk to send materials to the Attorney General and Loving, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order. The order did not decide whether Loving’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Loving v. Superintendent · No. 7:20-cv-11135
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
Franklin Loving, who was incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer seeking damages for alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights. He named the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility and an unidentified physician, listed as “John or Jane Doe, M.D.” The court had previously allowed Loving to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service on the Superintendent
Because Loving was allowed to proceed 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 serving the Superintendent until 90 days after the court issued a summons for that defendant. It stated that Loving should request an extension if service was not completed within that period.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form with the Superintendent’s service address, and give the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. Loving was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Identifying the physician
The court stated that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying an unnamed defendant. It found that Loving’s amended complaint provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the physician who conducted Loving’s medical screening and physical examination when he entered Downstate in January 2019.
The court ordered the New York Attorney General, described in the opinion as the attorney and agent for the Department, to identify the physician and provide the physician’s service address to Loving and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Loving must file a second amended complaint naming the physician. That complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court stated that it would screen the second amended complaint and, if necessary, issue further service instructions.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered the Clerk to mail Loving a copy of the order and an information package, issue the Superintendent’s summons, prepare the service materials, and send the order and amended complaint to the New York Attorney General. The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order addressed service and identification procedures; it did not rule on the merits of Loving’s constitutional claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court addressed service, identification of an unnamed defendant, and related case-management steps without deciding the underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.