Zeigler v. Williams, et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the Court's filing fee. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of the Complaint and this Order to the Suffolk County Attorney pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins to ascertain the f ull names and service address(es) of the corrections officers, who were involved in the incident described in the Complaint. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 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 any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/19/12. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
TINDRICK ZEIGLER,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
12-CV-4075(JS)(AKT)

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN DOES
# 1-5,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
Tindrick Zeigler, Pro Se
10-R-3087
Cayuga Correctional Facility
2202 State Route 38A
P.O. Box 1186
Moravia, New York 13118
For Defendants:

No Appearance

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On

August

15,

2012,

incarcerated

pro

se

plaintiff

Tindrick Zeigler (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this Court
pursuant to Section 1983 against the unidentified “John Doe”
Defendants, together with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he was assaulted by

corrections

officer

while

Correctional Facility.

he

was

detained

at

the

Riverhead

Upon review of the application to proceed

in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s financial
status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of
the Court’s filing fee. Accordingly, the application to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted.
However, the United States Marshal Service will not be

able to serve the intended Defendants without more information.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of
the Complaint and this Order to the Suffolk County Attorney.
Pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997) (per
curiam), the Court requests that Suffolk County Attorney ascertain
the full names and service address(es) of the corrections officers,
who were involved in the incident described in the Complaint to
have occurred on January 26, 2010 during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00
p.m. shift at the Riverhead Correctional Facility.

The Suffolk

County Attorney need not undertake to defend or indemnify these
individuals at this juncture.

This Order merely provides a means

by which Plaintiff may name and properly serve the Defendants as
instructed by the Second Circuit in Valentin.

The Suffolk County

Attorney is hereby requested to produce the information specified
above

regarding

the

identities

and

service

addresses

of

the

corrections officers by October 12, 2012. Once this information is
provided, Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be deemed amended to reflect
the full names of the Defendants, summonses shall be issued and the
Court shall direct service on the Defendants.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 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
any appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45,

82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.

Dated: September 19, 2012
Central Islip, New York
2