Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2022

Roundtree v. Jane Doe 1

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:22-cv-01697
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Section 1983Civil RightsPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rashaun Roundtree v. Orange County, Judge Seibel dismissed the jail, kept Orange County for service, and ordered identification of two Jane Doe defendants.

Who this affects

Rashaun Roundtree; Orange County; the Orange County Jail; and the unnamed medical administrative provider and head nurse added as Jane Doe 1-2.

What happened

Rashaun Roundtree sued Orange County and the Orange County Jail under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional violations during his 2019 detention. He also described claims against a medical administrative provider and a head nurse whose names he did not know.

The court dismissed the claims against the Orange County Jail because a jail is not treated as a person that can be sued under that law. The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Orange County and extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summons is issued.

Judge Seibel added Jane Doe 1-2 to the case and ordered the Orange County Attorney to identify them. Roundtree must file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days after receiving that information; the court also denied fee-free status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Roundtree v. Jane Doe 1 · No. 7:22-cv-01697
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Nov. 17, 2022

Background

Rashaun Roundtree, who was incarcerated at Wallkill Correctional Facility when the order was issued, brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Orange County and the Orange County Jail violated his constitutional rights during his detention at the Orange County Jail in 2019. He also alleged that an unnamed medical administrative provider and an unnamed head nurse were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs between August 15 and August 26, 2019.

The court had previously allowed Roundtree to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because he was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court explained that the court and the U.S. Marshals Service would handle service of process after the court reviewed the complaint.

Screening and rulings

The court conducted the required screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss an action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case.

The court dismissed Roundtree’s claims against the Orange County Jail. It held that the jail is not a “person” that may be sued under Section 1983.

The court did not dismiss Orange County at this stage. It instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare the service paperwork, issue a summons, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued and that Roundtree should request an extension if service cannot be completed within that period.

Under Rule 21, the court directed the Clerk to amend the caption to add “Jane Doe 1-2” as defendants. The court ordered the Orange County Attorney to determine the identities and service addresses of the two unnamed defendants and provide that information to Roundtree and the court within 60 days. Roundtree must file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court will screen it before directing service if necessary.

Disposition

The Clerk was directed to dismiss the Orange County Jail, add Jane Doe 1-2 as defendants, and arrange service on Orange County. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Roundtree permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order does not state that the dismissal of the Orange County Jail was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.