Illescas v. Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-08473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Illescas v. Annucci, Judge Roman ordered service and identification of unnamed correctional officers in Silvio R. Illescas’s amended civil-rights case.
Silvio R. Illescas, the five newly named defendants, the four unidentified correctional officers, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court, and the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
What happened
In Illescas v. Annucci, Silvio R. Illescas, who is incarcerated and representing himself, alleged that prison medical defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He brought claims under a federal civil-rights law and possibly state law. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to amend it.
Judge Roman’s order directed the Clerk of Court to prepare documents so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve five newly named defendants. The order also directed the New York State Attorney General’s Office to identify four unnamed correctional officers and provide their service addresses. Illescas must file a second amended complaint naming those officers after receiving the information.
Judge Roman did not decide whether Illescas’s claims were legally valid. The order addressed service and identification of defendants, set related deadlines, and warned that the case could be dismissed if Illescas did not keep the court informed of address changes.
The detailed version
- Illescas v. Annucci · No. 7:21-cv-08473
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 2, 2023
Background
Silvio R. Illescas, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The court also construed the complaint as possibly asserting state-law claims.
The court had previously allowed Illescas to proceed without prepaying filing fees. On December 7, 2022, it dismissed his complaint and allowed him to amend. Illescas filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2023, adding Nicolet T. Thompson, John Doe Correctional Officers #1 through #4, Dr. Mohamme, Dr. Odenlyl, Susanna Nayshuler, and Dr. Kim as defendants.
Service on Named Defendants
Because Illescas was permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms for Nicolet T. Thompson, Dr. Mohamme, Dr. Odenlyl, Susanna Nayshuler, and Dr. Kim. The Clerk was also directed to issue summonses and send the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.
The amended complaint must be served within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Illescas should request more time. The court also instructed Illescas to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Identification of John Doe Defendants
The court explained that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the court’s assistance in identifying a defendant and obtaining a service address. The court found that Illescas had provided enough information for the New York State Attorney General’s Office to identify the four John Doe correctional officers who allegedly transported him to and from Vassar Brothers Medical Center.
The court ordered the Attorney General’s Office, described as the attorney and agent for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, to determine the officers’ identities and service addresses and provide that information to Illescas and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Illescas must file a second amended complaint naming the officers. That complaint will replace, rather than add to, the existing complaint. The court will then screen the second amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to prepare service documents for the newly identified defendants.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to complete the service forms for the five named defendants, send the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service, and mail a copy of the order to the New York State Attorney General’s Office. The court also directed that a copy of the order and an amended-complaint form be mailed to Illescas.
This was a procedural order concerning service and identification of defendants. Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide the merits of Illescas’s deliberate-indifference or possible state-law claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.