Washington v. Downstate Administrative Nurse
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-07159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
Washington v. Morley: Judge Karas ordered service and defendant-identification steps in Jeremiah D. Walker Washington Jr.’s prison medical-care lawsuit.
Jeremiah D. Walker Washington Jr.; named defendants John Morley and Mikhail Gusman; the unidentified defendants; the Clerk of Court; the U.S. Marshals Service; and the New York State Attorney General.
What happened
Jeremiah D. Walker Washington Jr. sued John Morley, Mikhail Gusman, and unidentified defendants under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that they ignored a serious medical condition in violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. He is incarcerated and is representing himself without a lawyer.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and paperwork so the U.S. Marshals Service can serve Morley and Gusman. It also ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify a doctor listed as “Dr. Dinelio Doe” and help identify the remaining unnamed defendants. Washington must file a second amended complaint naming those defendants after receiving the information.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas extended the service period to 90 days after summonses are issued and set deadlines for identifying the defendants and filing the second amended complaint. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide whether Washington’s medical-care allegations were legally or factually correct.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Downstate Administrative Nurse · No. 7:21-cv-07159
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
Jeremiah D. Walker Washington Jr., who was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, brought a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He alleged deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The opinion states that he was proceeding without a lawyer and had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
Service on Named Defendants
Because Washington was proceeding without advance payment of fees, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the deadline for service until 90 days after summonses are issued. It instructed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for John Morley and Mikhail Gusman, complete the required service forms with their addresses, and deliver the necessary papers to the Marshals Service.
The court also stated that Washington must notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the case could be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Identifying Unnamed Defendants
The court found that the complaint supplied enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the last name of “Dr. Dinelio Doe.” It ordered the New York State Attorney General to determine that defendant’s identity and service address within 60 days and provide the information to Washington and the court.
Within 30 days after receiving that information, Washington must file a second amended complaint naming Dr. Dinelio Doe. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint.
For the remaining Doe defendants, Washington must provide the Attorney General with more detailed identifying information within 30 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving that information, the Attorney General must identify the defendants and their service addresses and provide the information to Washington and the court. Washington must then name those defendants in the second amended complaint within 30 days of receiving the information.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and service materials for Morley and Gusman and to send the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General. The court also sent Washington information materials and a second amended complaint form. This was an order about service and identifying defendants, not a decision on the merits of the alleged medical-care violations.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.