Louis v. Morley

Background

Kevin Louis, who was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that medical staff at Woodbourne and Sing Sing Correctional Facility were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The court had already allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees, meaning that the court and U.S. Marshals Service could assist with serving the defendants.

Service on Named Defendants

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms for Superintendent David Howard, Dr. Ruiz, Dr. Harris Baker, and Dr. Aaron Roth. The U.S. Marshals Service was directed to receive the necessary papers and serve those defendants. The court stated that service should occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, and that Louis should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

Identifying the Unnamed Nurse Administrator

Louis named the Woodbourne “Nurse Administrator” as a John Doe defendant. Because Louis was representing himself and provided enough information to identify that person, the court directed the New York State Attorney General, as the attorney and agent for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, to determine the defendant’s identity and service address. The Attorney General was ordered to provide that information to Louis and the court within 60 days.

Leave to Amend

The court explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

The court found that Louis had not alleged how John Morley, identified as the Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer, was personally involved. It gave Louis 60 days to file an amended complaint adding facts supporting claims against Morley. If Louis did not amend the complaint to assert claims against Morley, the court stated that it would dismiss those claims for failure to state a claim. The court also allowed Louis to add allegations about his medical treatment or lack of treatment and any pain caused by his condition.

Requests for Emergency Relief and Counsel

Louis requested an order requiring the defendants to respond concerning preliminary emergency relief. The court denied that request because Louis had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious merits questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

Louis also requested appointment of volunteer counsel. The court’s discussion states that this request was denied without prejudice because the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits. However, the conclusion states that both the request for an order to show cause and the request for volunteer counsel were denied with prejudice. The opinion therefore contains an inconsistency about the stated terms of these two denials.

Disposition

This order did not decide whether Louis’s medical-care claims were legally or factually correct. It directed service, required assistance in identifying the unnamed defendant, allowed amendment, and ruled on Louis’s requests for emergency relief and counsel. The court also instructed Louis to notify the court of any address change and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal of the action.