Evelyn v. Rantab Enterprises Incorporated
1:24-cv-00528
S.D.N.Y.Feb 23, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Rochelle Evelyn and Royce Corley, appearing pro se, bring claims under federal and state law arising from events at Mount Sinai Morningside (formerly St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center) and interactions with NYPD officers.
- The action is based on an alleged incident involving the plaintiffs, their deceased minor child named DBY (a stillborn), hospital staff, and unidentified NYPD officers, primarily occurring on January 23, 2021.
- Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief for alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, as well as related state law claims.
- The court grants the plaintiffs leave to proceed in forma pauperis but determines that the claims on behalf of DBY must be adjusted to name the Estate of DBY, not DBY individually.
- The court dismisses pro se claims brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of the Estate of DBY, as multiple survivors cannot represent an estate pro se; such claims must be brought by an attorney.
- The court directs service on named defendants, assistance in identifying the unnamed ones, and provides deadlines and procedural instructions for further filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DBY can be named as a plaintiff or must be the Estate of DBY | Plaintiffs list DBY as plaintiff | N/A | Court orders substitution of Estate for DBY |
| Whether pro se plaintiffs can assert claims on behalf of Estate of DBY | Plaintiffs seek to do so as parents/survivors | N/A | Court dismisses such claims without prejudice; must be brought by attorney |
| Whether service on defendants should proceed and how | Plaintiffs entitled to service by U.S. Marshals as IFP litigants | N/A | Court orders service on identified defendants via U.S. Marshals |
| How to identify unnamed defendants (officers and administrator) | Plaintiffs provide descriptions | N/A | Court orders counsel for City and hospital to assist in identifying and providing service information |
Key Cases Cited
- Pappas v. Philip Morris, Inc., 915 F.3d 889 (2d Cir. 2019) (addresses when estate beneficiary can appear pro se on behalf of estate)
- Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2010) (restricts pro se representation of an estate when multiple beneficiaries exist)
- Iannacone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1998) (clarifies limits of pro se representation in federal court)
- Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997) (pro se litigants entitled to court assistance in identifying unnamed defendants)
- Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must request extension of time for service if needed)
- Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (explains service procedure for IFP litigants)