Mitchell v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-04348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Mitchell v. City of New York, Judge Liman ordered service and identification steps while the constitutional claims continued.
Kareem Mitchell, the City of New York, the AMKC warden, Deputy Warden Cook, the two unidentified John Doe defendants, and the New York City Law Department and Department of Correction, which were directed to take specified procedural steps.
What happened
Kareem Mitchell v. City of New York concerns Mitchell’s self-represented lawsuit claiming that defendants violated his constitutional rights during his detention on Rikers Island. The opinion does not decide whether those claims are valid.
The court requested that the City, the AMKC warden, and Deputy Warden Cook waive service. It also directed the New York City Law Department to identify two John Doe defendants, required Mitchell to file a second amended complaint after receiving that information, and applied a prisoner-discovery rule to the case.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the Clerk to send the order and complaint to the Law Department and referred Mitchell to a legal clinic that assists people representing themselves. The order allowed the case to proceed to these next steps but did not resolve the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mitchell v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-04348
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 18, 2023
Background
Kareem Mitchell, who was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility when the order was issued, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during his detention on Rikers Island. The named defendants are the City of New York; the warden of the Anna M. Kross Center; Deputy Warden Cook; and two defendants identified as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2.
The court had previously allowed Mitchell to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and had allowed him to file an amended complaint. Mitchell filed that amended complaint on October 12, 2023. The case was reassigned to Judge Liman on October 17, 2023.
Court’s Actions
The order is an order of service and does not decide the merits of Mitchell’s constitutional claims.
The court requested that the City of New York, the AMKC warden, and Deputy Warden Cook waive service of summons. It directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department about the order.
The court also directed the New York City Law Department to identify the names, badge numbers, and service addresses of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2. The Law Department must provide that information to Mitchell and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Mitchell must file a second amended complaint naming the Doe defendants. That complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the current amended complaint. The court stated that it would screen the second amended complaint and, if necessary, ask the newly named defendants to waive service.
Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the case. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified, court-ordered discovery requests. Defendants must serve responses to those requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
The court informed Mitchell that he may seek limited-scope assistance from the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Pro Se Clinic. The order explained that the clinic is a private organization, is not part of the court, and cannot file documents for him. The Clerk was directed to mail Mitchell the order and an information package, and to send the order and complaint to the Law Department.
Disposition and Significance
Judge Lewis J. Liman directed these service, defendant-identification, discovery, and referral steps. The opinion does not state that any claim was dismissed, and it does not determine whether any defendant violated Mitchell’s constitutional rights.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.