Deans v. Cimorelli et al
Plaintiff: Tashay David Deans
Defendant: Cimorelli and Orange County Goshen Jail
Case Number: 1:2018cv02576
Filed: March 22, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: Dutchess
Presiding Judge: Colleen McMahon
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 28, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 62 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF SERVICE: For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the in forma pauperis application is MOOT, GRANTS the request for an order appointing Marshal Service to serve the named Defendants in the Four th Amended Complaint, and DENIES Plaintiff's request for another Valentin Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 53, which was a request for an order of service as to the Third Amended Complain t, as that application is now moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Supplemental Order of Service to Plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summonses as to Defendants (as defined above and listed in A ppendix A). The Court certifies under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). Motions terminated: 53 MOTION to Serve. filed by Tashay David Deans. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/28/2023) (ate) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.
October 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 36 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF SERVICE: Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the SAC, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permi t the Orange County Law Department to identify the nurses and doctors who treated Plaintiff's eye conditions at the Orange County Correctional Facility from November 2017 through February 2018. It is therefore ordered that the Law Department , which is the attorney for an agent of the Orange County Department of Correction, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served. The Law Departmen t must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file a Third Amended Complaint naming the John Doe Defendants. The Third Amende d Complaint will replace, not supplement, the Second Amended Complaint. A Third Amended Complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. The Court will screen the Third Amended Complaint once it is filed by Plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this supplemental order to Plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and SAC to the Orange County Law Department at: 255-275 Main Street, Goshen, NY 10924. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summonses as to Defendants (as defined above). The Court certifies under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is den ied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. ( USM-285 Form due by 11/3/2022. Request for Issuance of Summons due by 11/3/2022.) (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 10/4/22) (yv) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.
April 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to submit a completed in forma pauperis application and is granted leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to this Order by June 21, 2022. Plaintiff's requests for the U.S. Marshals to effect service ( ECF No. 25) and for a Valentin Order (ECF No. 26) are denied without prejudice, and the Court's previous Orders to Show Cause (ECF Nos. 16 & 19) are withdrawn. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Orange County Jail Medical Unit as a defendant, mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff, and show service on the docket. ( Amended Pleadings due by 6/21/2022.) (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 4/21/2022) (ate)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Deans v. Cimorelli et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tashay David Deans
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cimorelli
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Orange County Goshen Jail
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?