Megginson v. Morales
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-03815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Megginson v. Morales, Judge Vyskocil ordered service steps and information gathering for defendants, without deciding the lawsuit’s merits.
Michael E. Megginson; the defendants named in the order, including ESH personnel and the City of New York; Evan Beiterman; the New York City Department of Correction; the New York City Law Department; the New York State Office of Mental Health; the New York State Attorney General; and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.
What happened
In Megginson v. Morales, Michael E. Megginson sued several defendants, including employees or officials associated with the New York City Department of Correction and a person identified as Evan Beiterman. The order does not decide the legal claims.
The court asked ten defendants and the City of New York to waive formal delivery of the summons. Because it was unclear whether Beiterman worked for the New York City Department of Correction or the New York State Office of Mental Health, the court directed the relevant government lawyers to determine his employer and, if needed, provide an address where he could be served.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the New York State Attorney General or New York City Corporation Counsel to provide that information to the court and Megginson within 60 days. The Clerk of Court was also directed to notify those offices and send them copies of the order and complaint.
The detailed version
- Megginson v. Morales · No. 1:22-cv-03815
- Vyskocil
- June 9, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is an order of service. It addresses how the defendants are to receive notice of the lawsuit and does not resolve the claims on their merits.
Service on Named Defendants
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) and the New York City Law Department of the order. The court requested that the following defendants waive service of summons: Enhanced Supervision Housing Assistant Deputy Warden Morales; Enhanced Supervision Housing Assistant Deputy Warden Green; Enhanced Supervision Housing Security Team Officer Kanol (or Kannol); Enhanced Supervision Housing Secretary Hammon; Enhanced Supervision Housing Hearing Officer Cummberbach; Enhanced Supervision Housing Correction Captain Ingram; Enhanced Supervision Housing Correction Captain Phillips; Correction Chief Lemmon; Assistant Deputy Warden or Correction Chief Glover; and the City of New York.
Identifying an Address for Evan Beiterman
Megginson identified Evan Beiterman as the “Director of [the New York State Office of Mental Health] for Rikers.” The court found it unclear whether Beiterman was employed by DOC or the New York State Office of Mental Health (NYSOMH). Because Megginson was proceeding without a lawyer, the court stated that he was entitled to the court’s assistance in identifying a defendant and that defendant’s service address.
The court ordered the New York State Attorney General or the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York to determine whether NYSOMH or DOC employed Beiterman and, if necessary, to identify an address where he could be served. The applicable office must provide that information to Megginson and the court within 60 days of the order. After receiving the information, the court stated that it would issue an order either requesting that Beiterman waive service or directing service on him, if necessary.
The order also specifies that, if Beiterman is a current or former DOC employee or official, the Corporation Counsel should state whether an electronic waiver request can be made under the service agreement for DOC defendants. If Beiterman is not a current or former DOC employee or official but worked at a DOC facility, the Corporation Counsel or Attorney General must provide a non-Rikers Island address where he may be served.
Additional Direction and Result
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and copies of the complaint to the New York State Attorney General and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil therefore issued service-related directions and information-gathering requirements; the order did not decide whether Megginson’s claims were legally valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.