Corines v. The Westchester County Dept. of Correction
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-05179
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Corines v. The Westchester County Dept. of Correction, Judge Karas ordered service and identification of unnamed defendants but did not decide the claims.
Peter J. Corines must provide address updates, seek an extension if service is not completed on time, and file a second amended complaint after the John Doe defendants are identified. The County of Westchester, the named jail officials, the Westchester County Attorney, and the U.S. Marshals Service are directed to take steps related to identifying defendants and serving the amended complaint.
What happened
In Corines v. The Westchester County Dept. of Correction, Peter J. Corines, who was incarcerated in Westchester County Jail, alleges that the defendants violated his rights. He filed an amended complaint after the court directed him to address problems in his original complaint.
The court ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Westchester County, two assistant wardens, and four sergeants. It also directed the Westchester County Attorney to identify the two unnamed mailroom and package-room employees, including their badge numbers and service addresses. After receiving that information, Corines must file a second amended complaint naming them.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas extended the service period to 90 days after summonses are issued and required Corines to request more time if needed. The court did not decide whether the alleged rights violations occurred, and it denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Corines v. The Westchester County Dept. of Correction · No. 7:22-cv-05179
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 12, 2023
Background
Peter J. Corines, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, brought this action alleging that the defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated in Westchester County Jail. The court had previously directed him to amend his original complaint to address identified deficiencies. Corines filed an amended complaint on December 14, 2022.
Service on Named Defendants
Because the court allowed Corines to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered service through the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms for the County of Westchester; Assistant Wardens Carl Vollmer and Francis Delgrosso; and Sergeants Hurley, Reyes-Rhodes, Lopez, and Ashterman.
The court explained that the amended complaint must be served within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Corines should request an extension of time. The court also required Corines to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Identifying the John Doe Defendants
The amended complaint names two unidentified employees connected with incoming and outgoing mail and packages. The court directed the Westchester County Attorney, as attorney and agent for the Westchester County Department of Correction, to determine the employees’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses. That information must be provided to Corines and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Corines must file a second amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint. The court will review it and may then direct the Clerk to prepare service materials for the newly identified defendants.
Disposition
The court ordered the issuance of summonses and the delivery of the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for the named defendants. It also directed that a copy of the order and amended complaint be sent to the Westchester County Attorney. The court did not resolve the merits of Corines’s allegations. Judge Kenneth M. Karas 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 an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.