Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 2025

Burnett v. White Plains Hospital

Full caption

Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital; Allied Universal Security; Anthony Anderson; John Doe Security Officers 1-4

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:25-cv-06463
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
11
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital, Judge Seibel ordered steps for serving defendants and identifying unnamed security officers.

Who this affects

Jaron Burnett; White Plains Hospital; Allied Universal Security; Anthony Anderson; and the four unidentified security officers.

What happened

Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital concerns claims arising from Burnett’s June 22, 2024 visit to White Plains Hospital. Burnett is representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance.

The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve White Plains Hospital, Allied Universal Security, and Anthony Anderson. It also ordered Allied Universal Security to identify the four unnamed security officers and provide their service addresses within 60 days.

Judge Cathy Seibel required Burnett to file an amended complaint naming any identified officers within 30 days after receiving the information. This order sets service and identification procedures; it does not decide whether Burnett’s claims are valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Burnett v. White Plains Hospital · No. 7:25-cv-06463
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Sept. 3, 2025

Background

Jaron Burnett, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims alleging denial of rights under federal and state law. The opinion states that the claims arose from his visit to White Plains Hospital on June 22, 2024. The court had previously granted Burnett permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Burnett was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered assistance from the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the defendants. The Clerk was directed to prepare summonses and service forms for White Plains Hospital, Allied Universal Security, and Anthony Anderson, and to give the Marshals Service the documents needed to serve them.

The court explained that the usual 90-day service period runs from the date the complaint is filed, but that Burnett could not have arranged service before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses. The court therefore stated that the service period is extended to 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, the order states that Burnett should request additional time. Burnett must also notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.

Identifying the John Doe Defendants

The complaint names four John Doe security officers. The court found that the complaint provided enough information for Allied Universal Security to identify the four officers who were stationed at White Plains Hospital on June 22, 2024, and present during Burnett’s arrest. Allied Universal Security was ordered to provide the officers’ identities and service addresses to Burnett and the court within 60 days.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Burnett must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendant or defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, later direct service of the named officers.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare service materials for White Plains Hospital, Allied Universal Security, and Anthony Anderson, and ordered the Clerk to send Allied Universal Security a copy of the order and complaint. The order also required Allied Universal Security to identify the unnamed officers and required Burnett to file an amended complaint after receiving that information. The opinion addresses service and identification procedures and does not rule on the underlying validity of Burnett’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.