McGinnis v. Orange County Jail
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-03335
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In McGinnis v. Orange County Jail, Judge Briccetti addressed service and an address update, and denied defendants’ dismissal motion without prejudice.
Jermaine McGinnis, Orange County, Correction Officer Bandes, Correction Officer M. Carter, Correction Officer Donahough, and Correction Officer D. Powles were affected. The orders concerned service on Carter and Powles, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and McGinnis’s obligation to provide a current address.
What happened
In McGinnis v. Orange County Jail, Jermaine McGinnis sued Orange County and several correction officers. The court said McGinnis was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. Some defendants had been served, while Correction Officer M. Carter and Correction Officer D. Powles had not been served.
The court directed the Clerk to prepare paperwork for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Carter and Powles, and substituted Powles for the defendant previously identified as Correction Officer D. Powel. The court also required McGinnis to provide a current mailing address by September 23, 2022, warning that the case could be dismissed if he failed to follow that order or failed to pursue the case.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the served defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, meaning the motion could be renewed later. The court said it would set a deadline for all defendants to respond after the unserved defendants had been served and appeared.
The detailed version
- McGinnis v. Orange County Jail · No. 7:22-cv-03335
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Jermaine McGinnis filed a complaint against Orange County; Correction Officer Bandes; Correction Officer M. Carter; Correction Officer Donahough; and Correction Officer D. Powel. The opinion states that McGinnis was proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, and in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee.
The August 5 orders addressed two case-management issues. First, the court stated that Orange County, Bandes, and Donahough had been served, but Carter and Correction Officer D. Powles had not. After the Orange County Attorney identified D. Powel as D. Powles and supplied service addresses for Carter and Powles, the court directed the Clerk to prepare the U.S. Marshals Service paperwork and summonses needed to serve them. The court also directed the Clerk to substitute Correction Officer D. Powles for Correction Officer D. Powel.
Second, the served defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on August 4. The court denied that motion without prejudice. It stated that, after Carter and Powles were served and appeared, it would set a deadline for all defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond. The court further stated that defendants represented by the same counsel should file one combined motion to dismiss if they intended to seek dismissal.
Address Order
On August 22, mailings of the court’s August 5 service order and order denying the motion to dismiss were returned as undeliverable. They had been sent to the address listed in McGinnis’s complaint. Because letters McGinnis had sent to the court used a return address for Rockland Psychiatric Center, the court stated that Chambers would resend the returned mailings to that address as well as to the address listed on the docket.
The court ordered McGinnis to complete and return a notice of change of address by September 23, 2022. It warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders or failure to pursue the case. The court cited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 41(b).
Disposition
The August 5 motion-to-dismiss order denied the served defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and terminated that motion from the docket. The August 5 service order directed service on Carter and Powles and substituted Powles for Powel. The August 23 order required McGinnis to provide a current address and directed Chambers to mail the orders to both identified addresses. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.