Caraballo v. Pliler
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-10476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Caraballo v. Pliler, Judge Halpern dismissed claims against Jane Doe without prejudice and ordered service on the named defendants.
Frank Caraballo’s claims against Correction Officer Jane Doe were dismissed without prejudice; the other named defendants were subject to service through the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Frank Caraballo, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued under a federal constitutional claim based on medical treatment and an alleged COVID-19 infection at FCI Otisville. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, and the court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court screened the complaint. It found that Caraballo’s allegations about Correction Officer Jane Doe’s work absence and earlier cell searches did not show that she knowingly disregarded a serious risk to inmates or otherwise violated his rights. The court dismissed his claims against Jane Doe, while allowing him to replead those claims if permitted by the federal rules.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the complaint on the other named defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Caraballo v. Pliler · No. 7:21-cv-10476
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 16, 2022
Background
Frank Caraballo, who is incarcerated at FCI Otisville and proceeded without a lawyer, brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He asserted claims concerning medical treatment he received and his alleged infection with COVID-19 at FCI Otisville. The case was originally filed in the Northern District of New York and transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court had previously granted Caraballo permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening of Jane Doe Claim
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the court to screen a prisoner’s complaint against government entities or government personnel. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s authority to decide.
Caraballo alleged that Correction Officer Jane Doe called out from work because of COVID-19 symptoms on April 21, 2021, after conducting cell searches earlier in the week. The court held that these allegations were insufficient to show that Jane Doe knowingly disregarded a serious risk of harm to inmates or that her conduct violated Caraballo’s rights. The court dismissed the claims against Jane Doe under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was without prejudice to Caraballo’s repleading claims against Jane Doe if permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Service on Other Defendants
Because Caraballo was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the usual service period to 90 days after summonses are issued because Caraballo could not serve the summonses and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued.
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete process forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on Warden Pliler, Assistant Warden Elmore, Correction Officer DiLeonardo, Nurse Gibbs, Health Administrator Groove, Nurse Kilbonic, Nurse Knibbs, Correction Officer Makalak, Captain Okane, Unit Officer Perdone, and Physician’s Assistant Stewart. The court stated that Caraballo must notify the court in writing of any address change and that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed Caraballo’s claims against Jane Doe without prejudice, ordered preparation and service of the claims against the other named defendants, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.