Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 29, 2021

Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:21-cv-01567
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC, Judge Carter added New York City, ordered service on NYCHHC, and left unnamed defendants for possible amendment.

Who this affects

Robert Derek Lurch Jr.; the City of New York, which was added as a defendant; New York City Health + Hospitals, which was ordered to be served; and the unnamed defendants, whose identities were not sought at this stage.

What happened

Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC concerns Robert Derek Lurch Jr.’s claims that, while detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center on Rikers Island, the defendants violated his rights. He brought the case without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

The court treated the complaint as also asserting claims against the City of New York and directed that the City be added as a defendant. It ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve New York City Health + Hospitals, extending the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. The court did not identify the unnamed defendants because the complaint did not provide allegations or enough information to identify them, but allowed Lurch to seek permission to amend the complaint.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued an order of service rather than deciding whether Lurch’s claims were legally valid. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from this order and directed that the order and information materials be mailed to Lurch.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC · No. 1:21-cv-01567
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Nov. 29, 2021

Background

Robert Derek Lurch Jr., who was incarcerated in Atlantic County Jail when the order was issued, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that, while he was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center on Rikers Island, the defendants violated his rights. The defendants named in the caption were NYCHHC and doctors who allegedly diagnosed and treated an inmate or detainee with flu or flu-like symptoms but failed to isolate that person afterward.

The court had previously granted Lurch permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The opinion also explains that an earlier dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule was later vacated after Lurch informed the court that he was not incarcerated when he filed this complaint.

Court’s Actions

The court applied the screening requirements for complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers and employees. Those requirements allow dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The order did not decide the underlying merits of Lurch’s allegations.

City of New York

Because Lurch was proceeding without a lawyer and appeared to intend to assert claims against the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City. It directed the Clerk of Court to add the City as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The amendment was stated to be without prejudice to defenses the City might assert.

New York City Health + Hospitals and Service

Because Lurch was permitted to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the Clerk to issue a summons, complete the required service form with New York City Health + Hospitals’ address, and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. The court requested that the City waive service of summons.

Unnamed Defendants

The court declined, at that time, to seek the identities of the unnamed defendants. It found that Lurch made no allegations against them and did not provide enough information for the defendants to be identified. The court stated that Lurch may seek permission to amend the complaint if he has more specific information and wishes to describe those defendants’ involvement.

Disposition

The Clerk was directed to add the City of New York as a defendant, notify the New York City Department of Corrections and the New York City Law Department, and arrange service on New York City Health + Hospitals through the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed that a copy of the order and an information package be mailed to Lurch.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.