Anjelu Sajetta v. City of New York, et al.
- Vargas
- 1:25-cv-02574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anjelu Sajetta v. City of New York, Judge Vargas extended the amendment deadline, declined broader employee identification, and found discovery premature.
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint by November 3, 2025. The City is not required at this stage to identify every person who worked in the West Facility mailroom during the requested period, and discovery will not proceed before the proper defendants are named.
What happened
In Anjelu Sajetta v. City of New York, the court addressed Plaintiff’s mailing address, his objections to the City’s response about identifying unnamed defendants, and his request for discovery. The court confirmed that Plaintiff had timely submitted an address change, and the docket was corrected to show his current address.
The City identified the employee assigned as the West Facility mailroom officer but said identifying other employees would require reviewing archived paper logs. Plaintiff asked the City to identify everyone who worked in that mailroom from January 2024 through the present, citing multiple incidents. The court found that Plaintiff had not provided enough information about the other incidents or the people involved to require that broader identification. The court also said discovery was not yet appropriate because Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint naming the proper defendants.
Judge Vargas granted Plaintiff an extension until November 3, 2025, to file an amended complaint under the court’s earlier instructions. The court did not require the City to identify every person who worked in the mailroom during the requested period, and it did not authorize discovery at that time.
The detailed version
- Anjelu Sajetta v. City of New York, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-02574
- Vargas
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
On September 5, 2025, the court ordered Plaintiff to update his mailing address or risk dismissal. Plaintiff responded that he had already sent an address update to the Pro Se Intake Unit in June 2025. Court records showed that the notice was received on June 27 and docketed on June 30. Although the electronic filing system had not been updated, the court corrected that error, and the docket now reflected Plaintiff’s current mailing address.
The court had also issued an order requiring the City to help identify unnamed defendants connected to the West Facility mailroom. The City identified the employee assigned as the mailroom officer. It said other employees might have performed that role during absences, but identifying them would require reviewing archived paper logs.
Plaintiff’s objections and discovery request
Plaintiff asked the court to require the City to identify all people who worked in the West Facility mailroom from January 2024 through the present. He referred to multiple incidents for which he wanted to hold Defendants accountable. The court noted that Plaintiff had not stated that the additional incidents involved anyone other than the assigned mailroom officer. He also had not provided the dates, nature, or descriptions of the alleged incidents or the people involved.
Because of this lack of information, the court declined to require the City to identify every person who worked in the mailroom during the twenty-one-month period. The court also noted that Plaintiff had not yet filed the amended complaint naming the proper defendants. It therefore found that discovery—the formal exchange of information and evidence between parties—was not appropriate at that time.
Ruling
Judge Vargas granted Plaintiff an extension until November 3, 2025, to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court’s June 12 order. The order did not require the City to identify all mailroom employees for the requested period and did not permit discovery at that stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.