Vasquez v. Anderson
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-07635
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dennis A. Vasquez v. Anderson, Judge Clarke dismissed claims against Opoku without prejudice and ordered service on Anderson and Francis.
Vasquez’s claims against Opoku were dismissed without prejudice. Anderson and Corrections Officer D. Francis remained subject to service of the complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Dennis A. Vasquez v. Anderson concerns claims brought by Vasquez without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. Vasquez alleged that the defendants disclosed information on May 13, 2025, creating a serious risk that another incarcerated person would harm him.
The court screened the complaint as required for prisoner cases. It found that Vasquez did not describe any personal involvement by Opoku and dismissed the claims against Opoku without prejudice, meaning Vasquez may replead them. The court did not dismiss the claims against Anderson and Corrections Officer D. Francis at this stage.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so Anderson and Francis can be served. The court also directed the New York State Attorney General to help identify complete names and badge numbers if needed.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. Anderson · No. 7:25-cv-07635
- Clarke
- Sept. 19, 2025
Background
Dennis A. Vasquez, who was incarcerated and represented himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that disclosures made by the defendants on May 13, 2025, to another person in custody created a serious risk of harm to him. The case was originally filed in the Northern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court had granted Vasquez permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance.
Screening of the Claims
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the court to review a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief against government entities or their employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that each defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. Vasquez named Correction Officer Opoku in the caption and defendant list, but the complaint did not otherwise mention Opoku. Because Vasquez alleged no facts showing what Opoku personally did or failed to do, the court dismissed the claims against Opoku without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Service on Anderson and Francis
Because Vasquez was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required U.S. Marshals Service forms for Anderson and D. Francis. The court directed the Marshals Service to receive the necessary paperwork and effect service. It stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Vasquez requests more time.
The court also directed the New York State Attorney General to help identify a defendant’s full name, badge number, and service address if either defendant could not be served because the complaint did not provide enough identifying information. The Clerk was directed to mail copies of the order and complaint to the Attorney General and to send Vasquez an information package.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed without prejudice Vasquez’s claims against Opoku. The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and arrange service for Anderson and D. Francis. The opinion does not state a final merits ruling on Vasquez’s allegations against Anderson or Francis.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.