Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2023

Devane v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:20-cv-09649
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Devane v. Doe, Judge Roman dismissed the action with prejudice after Devane failed to amend or seek an extension.

Who this affects

The dismissal ended Donnie Devane’s § 1983 action against the unidentified doctor and the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility.

What happened

In Devane v. Doe, Donnie Devane, representing himself, sued a doctor identified as John or Jane Doe and the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The court had previously dismissed Devane’s complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim and gave him until June 1, 2021, to amend it or request more time. Devane did neither.

The court therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice and ended the action. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk to close the case, mail Devane a copy of the order, and record service.

The detailed version

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

Case
Devane v. Doe · No. 7:20-cv-09649
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Mar. 6, 2023

Background

Donnie Devane, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action against a “John or Jane Doe, M.D.” and the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state officials, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Earlier Order

On April 27, 2021, the court dismissed Devane’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under the statute governing screening of complaints filed by people who cannot afford the filing fee. The court granted Devane leave to amend by June 1, 2021, and stated that the action could be dismissed with prejudice if he neither amended nor requested an extension. The court also certified that an appeal from that earlier order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.

Ruling

The court found that Devane had neither amended his complaint nor requested an extension by the deadline. It therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice and terminated the action. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, mail the order to Devane at the address listed on the docket, and record service.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.