Sterling v. The State of New York

Background

Brandon Sterling, who was incarcerated in the Sullivan County Jail when the order was issued, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, including allegations concerning inadequate medical treatment.

The court had previously granted Sterling permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. In an earlier order, the court dismissed claims against the State of New York and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision because the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims. The court also directed the New York State Attorney General to identify unnamed personnel allegedly involved in the medical-treatment allegations and gave Sterling 30 days after receiving that information to amend his complaint.

Sterling filed an amended complaint naming Correction Officer Pennenga, Sergeant J. Pallone, Deputy Superintendent A. Akinyombo, Janice Wolffriedman, M.D., Joseph Avanzato, M.D., and Mariamna Baby, N.P. The opinion states that the court did not know whether the Attorney General provided the names before the allotted 60 days expired or whether Sterling obtained them another way.

Service of the Amended Complaint

Because Sterling 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 usual 90-day service period so that it would run from the date the summonses were issued, because Sterling could not serve the summonses and amended complaint before the court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered issuance of the summonses.

The court stated that if the amended complaint was not served within that period, Sterling should request an extension of time. It also directed the Clerk of Court to prepare U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary documents and service addresses to the Marshals Service for service on the six named defendants.

Other Directions and Disposition

The court directed Sterling to notify it in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. The court ordered the Clerk to mail Sterling a copy of the order and to arrange service through the Marshals Service.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 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 related case-management matters; it did not decide the merits of Sterling’s remaining constitutional claims.