Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci

Background

Willie Bright’s second amended complaint asserted claims against unnamed “John Doe Strip Search Officers.” He alleged that five correctional officers assaulted him while performing a strip-search inspection inside his facility on February 28, 2016. The claims that survived an earlier partial dismissal included deliberate-indifference, sexual-assault, and excessive-force claims against all officers assigned to observe and assist in that inspection.

The identities of those officers were not determined during discovery. In April 2025, Bright submitted two letters listing surnames he believed identified the officers, including Assaniro, Newman, Rayez, Forsyth, Chiapperino, Johnson, Collins, and Reyes, as well as officers listed in a logbook. The court noted that Bright did not expressly identify the logbook, but it appeared to be dated February 28, 2016.

Court’s Analysis

Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a self-represented litigant is entitled to the court’s assistance in identifying a defendant. Magistrate Judge Reznik found that Bright’s information was sufficient to allow the defendants to identify all unnamed officers assigned to observe and assist in the inspection.

The DOCCS Defendants had argued in letters to the court that Bright’s claims against the unnamed officers exceeded the permission previously granted to file a second amended complaint. The court declined to decide that issue. It explained that Judge Roman’s earlier order stated that the claims against the unnamed strip-search officers survived, and that any disagreement with that ruling should be raised with Judge Roman or in a later motion addressing the case’s outcome.

Order

Judge Reznik ordered the New York State Attorney General, identified as the attorney for and agent of the DOCCS Defendants, to determine the identities of the unnamed strip-search officers and the addresses where they could be served. The Attorney General must provide that information to Bright and the court within 45 days after the order’s entry.

The court also stated that, for efficiency, it would amend the case caption under Rule 21 to substitute the officers’ names within 30 days after receiving the identifying information. If necessary, the court would direct the Clerk of Court to complete service forms with the officers’ addresses and provide the documents needed for service by the U.S. Marshals Service. The order addressed identification and service; it did not resolve the underlying assault or constitutional claims.