Neil v. Silver
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:23-cv-03223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Neil v. Silver, Judge Seibel ordered service on Dr. Kim and required identification and amendment concerning Doe defendants in Vernon Neil’s medical-rights case.
Vernon Neil, Dr. K. Kim, the unidentified Doe defendants, the New York State Attorney General, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Neil v. Silver, Vernon Neil, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, alleges that Doctor L. Silver, Dr. K. Kim, and unidentified nursing providers were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The court treated his constitutional-rights claims as claims under a federal civil-rights law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Neil is representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance.
The court had previously dismissed the claims against Dr. Kim because the complaint did not show Kim’s personal involvement, while allowing Neil time to amend. Neil then filed an amended complaint alleging Kim’s personal involvement. The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so Kim could be served. It also directed the New York State Attorney General to identify the Doe defendants.
Judge Seibel ordered the Attorney General to provide that information within 14 days. Within 30 days after receiving it, Neil must file a second amended complaint naming the Doe defendants. The order also set service-related instructions and warned Neil to notify the court of any address change; it did not decide the underlying medical-care claims.
The detailed version
- Neil v. Silver · No. 7:23-cv-03223
- Cathy Seibel
- July 13, 2023
Background
Vernon Neil, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer. He alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Because he asserted constitutional-rights violations, the court construed the complaint as bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had previously granted Neil permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In an April 25, 2023 order, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Dr. Silver, directed the New York State Attorney General to identify the Doe defendants, dismissed the claims against Dr. K. Kim for lack of personal involvement, and gave Neil 60 days to file an amended complaint. Neil filed an amended complaint on May 25, 2023, alleging facts intended to show Kim’s personal involvement.
Service on Dr. Kim
Because Neil was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a USM-285 service form for Dr. Kim, issue a summons, and deliver the required papers to the Marshals Service.
The court stated that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summons is issued, Neil should ask for more time. The court also required Neil to notify it in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Unidentified defendants
The court stated that the docket appeared to show that the New York State Attorney General had not yet identified the Doe defendants as previously ordered. The court directed the Attorney General to provide the identifying information to Neil and the court within 14 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving that information, Neil must file a second amended complaint naming the Doe defendant or defendants. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original and first amended complaints. After it is filed, the court will screen it and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to prepare service forms and send the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service.
Disposition
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to issue a summons for Dr. Kim, complete the service form with Kim’s address, and deliver the service materials to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General’s Managing Attorney’s Office. This order addressed service and identification of defendants; the opinion did not decide whether the alleged medical-care violations occurred or whether the defendants are liable.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.