Lucas Sebastian v. Doe

Background

Lucas Sebastian, using a pseudonym and proceeding without a lawyer, sued Jane Doe and John Doe. The complaint alleged that John Doe resides somewhere in the United States and that Jane Doe resides somewhere in New York, but it gave no service addresses or other identifying information for either defendant.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Valentin v. Dinkins, a self-represented plaintiff is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying an unnamed defendant. That assistance is not automatic, however. The plaintiff remains responsible for providing information sufficient to identify the defendant and for providing an address where the defendant can be served with the lawsuit.

The court found that Sebastian had provided no identifying information about either defendant and had not identified a person or institution that could assist in identifying them. The court therefore could not issue a Valentin order at that time. The court noted that Sebastian alleged he had previously served John Doe with a cease-and-desist letter and received a reply, which suggested that Sebastian might have additional information about John Doe.

Order

The court directed Sebastian, within 30 days of the order, to provide: (1) additional information that could help identify Jane Doe and John Doe, along with information about any person or institution that might assist with their identification; and (2) current addresses where the defendants could be served. The court stated that Sebastian could request an extension of time if he could not comply within the 30-day period.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.