Peralta v. Khouri
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-02760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Peralta v. Khouri, Judge Halpern ordered service on El Moackly and identification of a John Doe defendant in Peralta’s civil-rights case.
Jimmy J. Peralta, El Moackly, the unidentified John Doe defendant, the Dutchess County Attorney, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Peralta v. Khouri, Jimmy J. Peralta, representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that defendants violated his rights while he was held in the Dutchess County Jail. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, and he later filed an amended complaint adding El Moackly and a John Doe defendant.
The court ordered the Clerk to prepare service papers for El Moackly and send them to the U.S. Marshals Service. It also ordered the Dutchess County Attorney to identify the John Doe defendant, provide the defendant’s badge number and service address within 60 days, and give that information to Peralta and the court. The court said Peralta should request more time if the amended complaint was not served within 90 days after summonses were issued.
Judge Halpern directed the Clerk to issue the summons and service materials, mail the order and amended complaint to the Dutchess County Attorney, and send Peralta an information package. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Peralta’s underlying claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Peralta v. Khouri · No. 7:24-cv-02760
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
Jimmy J. Peralta is proceeding without a lawyer and brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials acting under state law. He alleges that defendants violated his rights while he was held in the Dutchess County Jail.
The court had previously allowed Peralta to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It had also directed the Clerk to prepare service materials for Doctor Khouri. On January 17, 2025, the court allowed Peralta to file an amended complaint. That complaint added El Moackly and a John Doe defendant.
Service on El Moackly
Because Peralta was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court instructed the Clerk to complete a U.S. Marshals Service process receipt and return form for El Moackly, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The court stated that the amended complaint must be served within 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Peralta should request an extension of time. The court also directed Peralta to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Identifying the John Doe Defendant
The court relied on a rule requiring assistance for a self-represented litigant who needs help identifying a defendant. It found that the amended complaint provided enough information for the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office to identify the John Doe defendant.
The court ordered the Dutchess County Attorney, identified in the opinion as the attorney and agent for the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office, to determine the John Doe defendant’s identity, badge number, and service address. That information must be provided to Peralta and the court within 60 days of the order. After receiving the information, the court stated that it would treat the amended complaint as amended to name that defendant and direct the Clerk to prepare service materials.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the Clerk to issue a summons, complete the service form for El Moackly, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail the order and amended complaint to the Dutchess County Attorney and send Peralta an information package.
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. This order addressed service and identification of defendants; it did not decide the merits of Peralta’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.