Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 18, 2025

Bilal v. John Doe #1

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:25-cv-07260
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
9
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Nazir Bilal v. John Doe #1, Judge Karas ordered officials to identify the alleged force-using defendants and required standard discovery.

Who this affects

Nazir Bilal, the three currently unidentified defendants, the New York State Attorney General, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision are affected by the identification, amendment, service, and discovery requirements.

What happened

Nazir Bilal, representing himself, sued three unidentified defendants under a federal civil-rights law, alleging excessive force while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The complaint may also include state-law claims, but the court did not decide whether those claims are valid.

The court ordered the New York State Attorney General to obtain each defendant’s identity, badge number, and service address within 60 days. Bilal must file an amended complaint naming the defendants within 30 days after receiving that information. The court also ordered defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued an order of service and related discovery directives; the order did not decide the merits of Bilal’s excessive-force claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bilal v. John Doe #1 · No. 7:25-cv-07260
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Sept. 18, 2025

Background

Nazir Bilal, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of constitutional rights. He alleges that three unidentified defendants used excessive force against him on August 13, 2025, between 4:30 and 6:30 a.m., while he was confined in E-Block, Cell 150. The court said the complaint could also be read to assert state-law claims.

The court noted that it had granted Bilal permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance in a separate order. The opinion also noted that incarcerated plaintiffs remain responsible for paying the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Identifying the Unnamed Defendants

The court concluded that Bilal provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the three John Doe defendants. Under the procedure described by the court, the New York State Attorney General, as DOCCS’s attorney and agent, must determine each defendant’s identity, badge number, and address where that defendant may be served.

The Attorney General must provide that information to Bilal and the court within 60 days of the order’s date. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Bilal must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendant or defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After the amended complaint is filed, the court will screen it and, if necessary, direct the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to serve the named defendants.

Standard Discovery

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner case. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Within 120 days after service of the complaint, defendants must serve responses and must quote each discovery request word for word in those responses.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed the Clerk of Court to mail Bilal an information package and an amended prisoner civil-rights complaint form. The Clerk must also mail the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General. The order provides instructions for identifying and naming the defendants and for standard discovery; it does not resolve whether Bilal will ultimately prevail on his excessive-force or possible state-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 9-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.