Burns v. Un-named employees of New York City Corrections and Health and…

Background

George Edward Burns filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He alleged that employees of the New York City Department of Correction and New York City Health and Hospitals, referred to as H + H, placed him in immediate danger of serious physical injury by administering only one dose of the COVID vaccine. The opinion states that Burns was detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island.

Burns had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset. Because he is a prisoner, however, he remains responsible for the full filing fee in installments under the applicable federal statute. The court described the required screening process for prisoner complaints, including dismissal of claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, malicious, barred by immunity, or outside the court’s jurisdiction. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed any claim under those standards.

Adding the City and H + H

Because Burns appeared to intend to bring claims against the City of New York and H + H, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against those entities. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court directed the clerk to add the City of New York and H + H as defendants. The amendment was stated to be without prejudice to defenses those defendants might later assert.

Service of process

The court directed the clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and requested that the City of New York waive service of the summons. Because Burns was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the clerk to issue a summons for H + H, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service form with H + H’s address, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. It also stated that Burns must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

John and Jane Doe defendants

The complaint did not specifically explain how each unnamed John or Jane Doe employee was involved in the alleged violation and did not provide enough information for the defendants to be identified. The court therefore declined at that time to seek their identities through the court’s assistance. It stated that Burns could move to amend the complaint if he obtained more specific information about the unnamed defendants and their involvement.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres ordered the City of New York and H + H added as defendants and ordered the service-related steps described above. The order did not decide the merits of Burns’s allegation about the COVID vaccine or determine whether any defendant violated his rights. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of such an appeal.