Jones v. New York City Department Of Corrections
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-02145
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jones v. New York City Department Of Corrections, Judge Vyskocil ordered service and identification steps but denied Jones’s counsel request without prejudice.
Michael J. Jones, the named defendants, the unnamed Jane Doe defendants, the New York City Department of Correction, and the New York City Law Department.
What happened
Jones v. New York City Department Of Corrections is a civil-rights case brought by Michael J. Jones without a lawyer under a federal law allowing suits over constitutional-rights violations. Jones alleges that his rights were violated while he was detained at the West Facility on Rikers Island.
The court directed the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department to help identify the unnamed defendants whom Jones says denied him mental-health medication and counseling and confiscated his hearing devices. The court also directed certain defendants to waive service and required defendants to respond to specified discovery requests.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Jones’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing it later. The case was not resolved on the merits, and Jones must file a second amended complaint naming the identified defendants.
The detailed version
- Jones v. New York City Department Of Corrections · No. 1:21-cv-02145
- Vyskocil
- May 19, 2021
Background
Michael J. Jones, who was incarcerated at Wende Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against state or local actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleges that defendants violated his rights while he was detained at the West Facility on Rikers Island. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and had allowed him to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint received on May 18, 2021 was the operative pleading.
Service and identification of unnamed defendants
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that Hazel Jennings, Cynthia Brann, and the City of New York waive service of summons, and the order states that those defendants waive service.
The court also issued an order requiring assistance in identifying the unnamed defendants. It found that Jones provided enough information for the Department of Correction to identify the Jane Doe defendants whom he alleges denied him access to mental-health medication and counseling and confiscated his hearing devices while he was in administrative segregation at the West Facility between February 2018 and May 2018. The New York City Law Department must identify each person, provide that person’s badge number and an address where service can be made, and give the information to Jones and the court within 60 days.
Within 30 days after receiving that information, Jones must file a second amended complaint naming the Jane Doe defendants. That complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint. The court will screen the second amended complaint and may then issue another order concerning service.
Request for counsel
Jones applied for the court to request pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. The court stated that the merits of the case receive the most attention when deciding such a request, but found that the case was too early for it to assess the merits. The court denied the application without prejudice to renewal at a later date.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified court-ordered discovery requests. Defendants must serve responses to those requests within 120 days, quoting each request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition and classification
The court ordered the service, defendant-identification, amended-pleading, and discovery steps described above. It denied Jones’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The order did not decide whether Jones’s constitutional claims were valid.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.