Gibson v. Burnett
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-01122
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 30
In Gibson v. Burnett, Judge Koeltl ordered service, defendant identification, and an amended complaint while directing unrelated Marcy claims to a new case.
David Gibson, the named and unidentified defendants in his Fishkill-related § 1983 action, and any correctional officers Gibson may seek to sue over separate claims arising at Marcy Correctional Facility.
What happened
In Gibson v. Burnett, David Gibson brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his incarceration at Fishkill Correctional Facility. The court received a later letter alleging separate violations by correctional officers at Marcy Correctional Facility, but those officers were not defendants and the allegations did not appear related to this case.
The court directed service of the complaint on Superintendent Edward Burnett, A. Akinyombo, and Danielle Lebron. It also required the New York Attorney General’s Office to identify three John and Jane Doe defendants and required Gibson to file an amended complaint naming them. The Attorney General’s Office identified two people but said it could not identify the sergeant without more information. The court also directed defendants to respond to specified discovery requests.
Judge John G. Koeltl told Gibson to bring any new claims based on his incarceration at Marcy in a separate complaint in the Northern District of New York. The orders addressed service, identifying defendants, venue, and discovery; they did not decide whether Gibson’s underlying claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Gibson v. Burnett · No. 7:22-cv-01122
- Kenneth Karas
- May 20, 2022
Background
David Gibson, proceeding without a lawyer, paid the filing fees to bring a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order of service states that his claims concern alleged violations of his rights while he was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility. The case caption names Superintendent Burnett and other defendants, including unidentified John and Jane Doe defendants.
Gibson later sent the court a May 8, 2022 letter alleging that correctional officers at Marcy Correctional Facility violated his rights. The court stated that those officers were not defendants in this action and that the letter’s allegations did not appear related to the existing claims. Because Marcy Correctional Facility is in the Northern District of New York, the court directed Gibson to bring any new claims arising from his incarceration there in a new complaint in that district.
Orders concerning service and unidentified defendants
The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Superintendent Edward Burnett, A. Akinyombo, Deputy Superintendent of Health Services, and Danielle Lebron, R.N. Gibson was directed to serve each defendant within 90 days after the summonses were issued, or request an extension. The court stated that failure to serve the defendants or request an extension could result in dismissal of the claims against them for failure to prosecute.
The court also ordered the New York State Attorney General, as the attorney and agent for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, to identify the badge numbers, identities, and service addresses of the Fishkill Deputy of Security John Doe, Sergeant John Doe, and Nurse Administrator Jane Doe. Gibson was required to file an amended complaint naming those defendants within 30 days after receiving the identification information. The court explained that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.
In its May 13, 2022 response, the Attorney General’s Office stated that Deputy of Security John Doe appeared to be Stephen Urbanski and that Nurse Administrator Jane Doe appeared to be Barbara Furco. It stated that it could not determine which sergeant Gibson intended to sue because more than one male sergeant was on duty on the relevant date. The office said further identification might be possible if Gibson provided a physical description or the exact time and location of his report.
Discovery and disposition
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified court-ordered interrogatories and document requests. The defendants were directed to serve responses within 120 days after service of the complaint.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses, mail the relevant papers to the New York State Attorney General and Gibson, and note service on the docket. It did not dismiss the action, decide the merits of Gibson’s § 1983 claims, or determine whether any defendant violated his rights. The ruling was an order concerning service, identification of defendants, discovery, and the handling of potentially unrelated claims.
Read the full 30-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.