Carter v. 1 John Doe [Black Male]
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06182
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Carter v. 1# John Doe, Judge Swain denied without prejudice Carter’s request to identify defendants and ordered an amended complaint addressing the prisoner filing bar.
David Carter must file an amended complaint addressing the imminent-danger exception and its connection to his claims; the case remains unresolved, and no summons will issue at this time.
What happened
In Carter v. 1# John Doe, David Carter alleged that corrections officers interfered with his legal mail at Green Haven Correctional Facility in 2021. He was incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility when he filed the case and was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury connected to his claims.
The Second Circuit directed the court to let Carter amend his complaint to address that exception and the required connection between his claims and the alleged danger. Carter instead asked for help identifying four Green Haven defendants involved in an alleged use of unnecessary force and a false disciplinary report.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied without prejudice Carter’s request for that identification assistance because he had not shown the required danger and connection. She directed him to file an amended complaint, stated that no summons would issue yet, and said the case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to comply without good cause.
The detailed version
- Carter v. 1 John Doe [Black Male] · No. 1:24-cv-06182
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 5, 2025
Background
David Carter is incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility and is representing himself. He filed this action without paying the filing fee. His original complaint alleged that corrections officers at Green Haven Correctional Facility interfered with his legal mail in 2021.
The court previously dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule, which generally bars a prisoner with three qualifying prior cases from filing a new case without paying the filing fee unless the prisoner shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Carter’s legal-mail allegations did not show such danger when he filed the complaint while incarcerated at Marcy.
Carter appealed and sought reconsideration. The court denied reconsideration, explaining that Carter’s allegations that officers and other prisoners at Marcy threatened him were unrelated to his 2021 legal-mail claims at Green Haven. The Second Circuit later vacated the judgment and sent the case back, agreeing that the three-strikes rule applied and that the original complaint did not allege imminent danger, but directing the court to allow Carter to amend his complaint to address the imminent-danger exception and the required connection between his claims and that danger.
Carter’s Request
After the case was reopened and Carter received 60 days to amend, he asked the court for assistance under a procedure that can help a self-represented plaintiff identify unknown defendants. He referred to four Green Haven defendants who allegedly used unnecessary force against him and prepared a false misbehavior report during a July 23, 2024 incident. He did not allege in that letter that he faced imminent danger.
Ruling
The court denied without prejudice Carter’s request for an order helping identify the defendants. It explained that Carter had not shown both required elements for the imminent-danger exception: an imminent danger of serious physical injury and a connection between that danger and the claims in this action.
The court directed Carter to file an amended complaint complying with the July 21, 2025 order. It stated that Carter likely could not show imminent danger connected to Green Haven events because he was no longer incarcerated there, but that the Second Circuit had directed the court to give him the opportunity to try. The court added that, if Carter alleged imminent danger at Marcy and claims against Marcy defendants based on events there, it would transfer the matter to the Northern District of New York to evaluate his request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that the action would be dismissed without prejudice if Carter failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Carter permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Carter’s legal-mail, excessive-force, or disciplinary-report allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.