Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2023

Taylor v. NYC DOC

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:22-cv-10214
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
12
Civil RightsCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Taylor v. NYC DOC, Judge Rochon dismissed claims against DOC, added New York City and H+H, and ordered identification of medical staff.

Who this affects

Darrick Dermont Taylor’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed, while the City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals were added as defendants. The order also affects the unidentified RNDC medical staff members, who may be named after Health + Hospitals identifies them.

What happened

Darrick Dermont Taylor v. NYC DOC concerns Taylor’s claim that medical staff at the Robert N. Davoren Center did not provide adequate medication for his serious medical conditions. Taylor is a pretrial detainee and is representing himself.

The court dismissed all claims against the New York City Department of Correction because the agency cannot be sued. It added the City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals as defendants, ordered service on Health + Hospitals, and directed Health + Hospitals to identify the medical staff members Taylor seeks to sue.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Taylor to file an amended complaint naming those staff members after receiving their identities. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Taylor v. NYC DOC · No. 1:22-cv-10214
Judge
Rochon
Date
Mar. 1, 2023

Background

Darrick Dermont Taylor, a pretrial detainee confined at the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island, filed this action without a lawyer. He alleges that the medical staff at the center has not provided adequate medication for his serious medical conditions. The court had already allowed Taylor to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Screening and Claims Against DOC

Because Taylor was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the federal statutes governing such cases. The court dismissed Taylor’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under New York City law, a city agency generally cannot be sued in its own name.

Adding Defendants

Because the claims concern medical care at the Robert N. Davoren Center, the court interpreted Taylor’s complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals, identified in the opinion as the medical-care provider for Department of Correction facilities. The court directed the Clerk of Court to add both entities as defendants. The addition was without prejudice to any defenses the City or Health + Hospitals might later assert.

Service and Identification of Medical Staff

The court requested that the City of New York waive service of the summons. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Health + Hospitals and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service.

The court also ordered Health + Hospitals to identify the medical staff members involved in Taylor’s care from October 22, 2022, to the present and provide service addresses within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Taylor must file an amended complaint naming the staff members. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court will review it before directing any further service.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dismissed Taylor’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction, directed that the City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals be added as defendants, ordered steps to serve Health + Hospitals, and ordered Health + Hospitals to identify the medical staff members Taylor seeks to sue. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Taylor permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 12-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.