Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 30, 2025

Perry v. John Doe 1

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:24-cv-08438
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Perry v. John Doe 1, Judge Liman ordered New York City officials to identify unnamed officers so Perry can amend his federal civil-rights complaint.

Who this affects

Kahreem Perry, the three unidentified officers he seeks to sue, and the New York City Law Department and Department of Correction, which must help identify the officers and provide service information.

What happened

In Perry v. John Doe 1, Kahreem Perry, who is incarcerated and representing himself, challenges visual body-cavity searches conducted at the Manhattan courthouse during his pretrial detention from 2021 to 2023. He sued three unnamed officers under a federal civil-rights law.

The court ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the three officers, provide their badge numbers, and give service addresses within 60 days. After receiving that information, Perry must file an amended complaint naming the officers within 30 days. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint, and the court will then screen it.

Judge Lewis J. Liman did not decide whether Perry’s claims are legally valid. He ordered the identification process and directed the Clerk of Court to send Perry forms and the New York City Law Department a copy of the order and complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Perry v. John Doe 1 · No. 1:24-cv-08438
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 30, 2025

Background

Kahreem Perry is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer. He brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for violating federal rights. Perry challenges visual body-cavity searches that he says were conducted at the Manhattan courthouse at 100 Center Street during his pretrial detention from 2021 through 2023.

Perry sued three unidentified officers, listed as John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and John Doe #3. The complaint describes John Doe #1 as a Hispanic man with a stout build and a clean-shaven head and face, and John Does #2 and #3 as African-American men. The complaint specifies dates in 2021, 2022, and 2023 when the searches allegedly occurred.

The court had previously granted Perry permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The opinion also notes that incarcerated people remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time under the prisoner-filing-fee statute.

Court’s Action

Because Perry did not know the officers’ names, the court applied a rule requiring assistance to self-represented litigants who need help identifying defendants. The court ordered the New York City Law Department, described as the attorney and agent for the New York City Department of Correction, to determine the identity and badge number of each officer Perry seeks to sue and the address where each officer can be served with the lawsuit. The Law Department must provide that information to Perry and the court within 60 days of the order.

Within 30 days after receiving the information, Perry must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than add to it. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if needed, issue an order asking the defendants to waive formal service.

Disposition

The court issued an order requiring assistance in identifying the unnamed defendants and directed the Clerk of Court to mail Perry an information package and an amended civil-rights complaint form. The Clerk must also send the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department. Judge Lewis J. Liman did not rule on the merits of Perry’s claims or determine whether the searches violated his rights.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.