In Re: Anjelu Sajetta

Background

Anjelu Sajetta is held in the West Facility, a jail operated by the New York City Department of Correction on Rikers Island, and is proceeding without a lawyer. Sajetta began the action by filing a letter, which the court treated as the complaint. The court understood the letter to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state or local actors, as well as state-law claims.

The letter did not name any defendants. The court understood Sajetta to allege that West Facility mailroom personnel withheld incoming legal and non-legal mail from prisoners, including Sajetta, because of a Department of Correction policy, custom, or practice. The court had previously allowed Sajetta to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, although the opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under federal law.

Court’s actions

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court added the City of New York and “‘John Doe’ West Facility mailroom personnel members” as defendants. The court stated that this addition was without prejudice to defenses the defendants might later assert.

The court requested that the City waive service of a summons. It directed the Clerk of Court to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and to send the order and complaint to the City’s Corporation Counsel.

The court also directed Corporation Counsel to determine the full identities of the unidentified mailroom personnel and, if appropriate, their badge numbers. That information must be provided to Sajetta and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Sajetta must file an amended complaint naming the identified individuals and, if appropriate, including their badge numbers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

What happens next

After Sajetta files the amended complaint, the court will screen it and may issue another order concerning service on the newly identified defendants. This order addressed adding parties, identifying defendants, and service-related steps. It did not decide the merits of Sajetta’s constitutional or state-law claims.