Greene v. Martuscello
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-05228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Greene v. Martuscello, Judge Roman granted defendants’ request to stay identifying eight John Doe defendants until the court rules on their dismissal motion.
The ruling pauses the time for defendants to identify eight unnamed defendants. It affects Terrance Greene, the named defendants, and the unidentified individuals by delaying that identification until after the court resolves the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Terrance Greene v. Commissioner Daniel F. Martuscello, Superintendent Marlyn Kopp, and C.O. K. Barnes, Greene had amended his complaint and asked the court to identify eight unnamed defendants. The defendants asked to pause the identification deadline while their motion to dismiss the amended complaint remained pending.
The court agreed that deciding the dismissal motion first could show that some or all claims against the unnamed defendants should not continue. The court also found that delaying the identification would not prejudice Greene and could avoid unnecessary time and expense for the defendants, the unnamed individuals, and the court.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ request for a stay. The order pauses the time to respond to the identification order; it does not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Greene’s claims.
The detailed version
- Greene v. Martuscello · No. 7:24-cv-05228
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
Terrance Greene filed the action on July 9, 2024. After defendants sought permission to file a motion to dismiss, the court allowed that motion. Greene then filed an amended complaint instead of opposing the first motion to dismiss. The amended complaint added eight unnamed defendants, identified as John Doe #1 through John Doe #8.
Greene later asked for an order requiring defendants to identify those unnamed individuals. The court granted that request on April 10, 2025, and instructed defendants to identify them within 60 days. Such an identification order is a procedural device used to help a plaintiff learn the names of people alleged to have committed the wrongdoing described in a complaint.
Defendants did not challenge the substance of the identification order. They asked the court to pause the 60-day period until the court decided their pending second motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Court’s reasoning
The court considered the interests of Greene, the defendants, the court, the unnamed individuals, and the public. It reasoned that Greene would not be materially harmed by the delay because he had already been allowed to amend his complaint once. The court also stated that identifying the unnamed individuals would not change whether the complaint adequately alleged a constitutional claim, because that question depends on the substance of the allegations rather than the names used.
The court found that defendants could be burdened by having to locate and identify all eight individuals before the court determined whether claims against some or all of them could proceed. It also found that deciding the motion to dismiss first would promote efficient use of judicial resources and could make the identification order unnecessary as to some or all of the unnamed defendants. The court similarly concluded that the unnamed individuals would benefit from knowing whether they would remain in the case before being located, served, and asked to obtain representation.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted defendants’ request for a stay of the identification order pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Greene, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The order does not state a ruling on the motion to dismiss or on the merits of Greene’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.