Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 26, 2022

Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:21-cv-01567
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
8
Section 1983Civil RightsPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC, Judge Carter ordered defendants to identify unknown doctors so the pro se plaintiff could amend his civil-rights complaint.

Who this affects

Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. must identify the unknown doctors in an amended complaint after receiving information about them. The New York City Law Department and New York City Health + Hospitals must investigate and provide the doctors’ identities and service addresses. The order concerns the unknown doctors and does not decide whether Lurch’s claims are valid.

What happened

In Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC, Robert Derek Lurch, Jr., representing himself, alleged under a federal civil-rights law that doctors failed to isolate detainees who had flu or flu-like symptoms. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

The court found that Lurch had provided enough information for the defendants to identify the doctors he wanted to sue. It ordered the New York City Law Department and New York City Health + Hospitals to identify those doctors and provide service addresses within 60 days.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. also ordered Lurch to file an amended complaint naming the doctors within 30 days after receiving the information. The order did not decide whether his civil-rights allegations were valid; the court said it would screen the amended complaint later.

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
Jan. 26, 2022

Background

Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government actors for violating federal rights. He proceeded without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Lurch sought to sue an unknown doctor or doctors based on an allegation that doctors diagnosed and treated detainees from “1 AA” who had the flu or flu-like symptoms but failed to isolate them from the general population afterward. The opinion states that Lurch's complaint and a December 27, 2021 letter supplied enough information to permit the defendants to identify the doctors.

Court’s Order

Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to help from the district court in identifying a defendant. The court ordered the New York City Law Department—which the opinion identifies as the attorney for and agent of the New York City Department of Correction and the City of New York—and New York City Health + Hospitals to determine the identity of the unknown doctor or doctors and provide an address where each could be served. They were ordered to provide that information to Lurch and the court within 60 days.

Within 30 days after receiving the information, Lurch must file an amended complaint naming the unknown doctors. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order for service on the doctors.

The order also directs the Clerk of Court to send the complaint, the order, and Lurch's December 27 letter to the New York City Law Department, and to send Lurch the order and an information package. The opinion does not resolve the merits of Lurch's civil-rights claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 8-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.