Dinkins v. The City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-01604
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Dinkins v. The City of New York, Judge Schofield ordered service steps, identification of some John Doe defendants, and prisoner discovery responses.
Shaquille S. Dinkins, the City of New York, the named correctional officials, the unidentified correctional employees, and the New York City Law Department and Department of Correction.
What happened
In Dinkins v. The City of New York, Shaquille S. Dinkins, who is incarcerated and representing himself, brought civil-rights claims under federal law based on events during his detention at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island.
The court asked the City of New York, Warden Charleton Lemon, and Deputy Security Warden Carter to waive formal delivery of the lawsuit. It ordered the New York City Law Department to identify two John Doe defendants, and it gave Dinkins 30 days after receiving that information to file an amended complaint. The court could not order identification of another John Doe officer because the complaint lacked enough information. The court also required defendants to answer specified prisoner-discovery requests within 120 days after service.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the Clerk to notify the relevant city agencies, denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, and stated that the case is subject to the standard prisoner-discovery rule. The order did not decide whether Dinkins's underlying claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Dinkins v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-01604
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 1, 2024
Background
Shaquille S. Dinkins, who is incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility and is representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events during his detention at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island. The court had previously granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion does not describe the underlying alleged misconduct or decide the merits of Dinkins's claims.
Service on Named Defendants
The Clerk of Court was directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. The court requested that the City of New York, Eric M. Taylor Center Warden Charleton Lemon, and Eric M. Taylor Center Deputy Security Warden Carter waive service of summons, which is the formal delivery of the lawsuit and related documents.
Identifying John Doe Defendants
The complaint provided enough information for the New York City Law Department to identify two unnamed defendants: the nurse on duty at the Eric M. Taylor Center on or about May 30, 2023, and the correction officer who escorted Dinkins off the bus transporting him from the center to the George R. Vierno Center on or about June 6, 2023. The court ordered the Law Department to determine each person's identity, badge number, and service address within 60 days of the order.
If either person is or was a Department of Correction employee or official, the Law Department was instructed to state whether service could be made under the electronic-service agreement for Department of Correction defendants. If a person worked at a Department of Correction facility but was not a current or former Department of Correction employee or official, the Law Department was instructed to provide a residential service address.
Within 30 days after receiving the identifying information, Dinkins must file an amended complaint naming the two John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue a later order concerning waiver of service. The complaint also names another unnamed correction officer employed at the Eric M. Taylor Center, but the court found that it lacked enough information to direct the Law Department to identify that person.
Prisoner Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specific court-ordered interrogatories and requests for documents. Defendants must serve responses to those standard requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
Conclusion and Effect
The Clerk was directed to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and to mail Dinkins an information package, a copy of the order, the complaint, and an amended prisoner civil-rights complaint form. The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order is procedural: it addresses service, identification of defendants, amendment of the complaint, and discovery, not whether Dinkins's claims are meritorious.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.