Laforest v. Doe

Background

Jean Pierre Laforest, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his federally protected rights. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The defendants named in the caption included an unidentified security guard, unidentified New York City police officers, Family Dollar, and the City of New York.

The court construed the Family Dollar defendant identified as the West Farms location as Family Dollar’s corporate parent rather than the particular Bronx store. Laforest provided the address for Family Dollar’s legal department: 500 Volvo Parkway, Chesapeake, Virginia 23320.

Service on Family Dollar

The Clerk of Court was directed to issue a summons for Family Dollar and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve the summons and complaint at the provided address. The court extended the time for service by 90 days from the date the summons is issued. The Clerk was also directed to mail Family Dollar a copy of the order and Laforest’s complaint.

Identifying the John Doe Security Guard

The court applied the rule that a self-represented litigant may receive help from the district court in identifying an unnamed defendant and obtaining that person’s service address. The court found that Laforest’s complaint gave Family Dollar enough information to identify the security guard who allegedly assaulted him on June 13, 2024, at a Family Dollar store in the West Farms neighborhood of the Bronx.

Because Family Dollar appeared to be the security guard’s employer, the court ordered Family Dollar to identify the guard and provide the guard’s service address to Laforest and the court within 30 days after receiving service. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Laforest must file an amended complaint naming the guard. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue further service instructions.

Subpoena Request

Laforest had requested a subpoena for surveillance video from a Family Dollar store on East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx. The court ruled that serving a subpoena on Family Dollar was not appropriate at that stage because Family Dollar was a defendant that had not yet been served. Laforest may seek the surveillance footage during discovery after Family Dollar has been served and the parties begin exchanging information.

The court denied Laforest’s request for the subpoena, without prejudice to seeking the same information during discovery, and directed the Clerk to close the notice of motion.

Disposition and Classification

This order granted procedural directions concerning service and identification of the unnamed defendant and denied the subpoena request without prejudice. It did not reach the merits of Laforest’s § 1983 claims. The order is therefore a procedural order.