Nieves v. Jia
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-08753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Nieves v. Jia, Judge Ramos ordered service but denied preliminary relief and counsel requests without prejudice.
Michael Nieves’s case against Dr. Shizhen Jia; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to arrange service.
What happened
In Nieves v. Jia, Michael Nieves, who is being held at Bellevue Hospital’s Prison Ward, alleges under a federal civil-rights law that Dr. Shizhen Jia is medicating him without his consent. Nieves was allowed to proceed without paying fees in advance.
The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve the papers on Dr. Jia. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. The court also denied Nieves’s request for preliminary relief and his request for a volunteer lawyer because it was too early to determine whether he was likely to succeed, but both requests may be renewed later.
Judge Edgardo Ramos also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Nieves’s medication claim is valid.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. Jia · No. 1:21-cv-08753
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 13, 2021
Background
Michael Nieves, who is being held at Bellevue Hospital’s Prison Ward, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendant Dr. Shizhen Jia is medicating him without his consent. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had previously allowed Nieves to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion states that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time even when granted that permission.
Service of the complaint
Because Nieves was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the summons and complaint. The court extended the deadline for service to 90 days after the summons is issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It directed the Clerk to issue the summons, complete the required service form with Dr. Jia’s address, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. Nieves was instructed to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Preliminary-injunction request
Nieves requested an order requiring Dr. Jia to appear and show cause why preliminary injunctive relief—including a temporary restraining order—should not issue. Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.
The court found that, at this stage, Nieves had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting relief. It therefore denied his request for an order to show cause, without prejudice to renewing the request later.
Request for counsel
Nieves also applied for pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. The court considered that the merits of the case could not yet be assessed because the proceedings were at an early stage. It denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk to mail Nieves a copy of the order and an information package and to begin the service process for Dr. Jia. The court denied both Nieves’s request for an order to show cause and his application for pro bono counsel, each without prejudice to renewal. It 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. The order did not decide the merits of Nieves’s allegation that Dr. Jia medicated him without consent.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.