Pineda v. Does 1–2
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-04552
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jose Pineda v. Does 1–2, Judge Clarke granted Pineda permission to replace his complaint and ordered service on four named defendants.
The order affects Jose Pineda, the four named DOCCS-related defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the United States Marshals Service. It makes Pineda’s amended complaint the operative complaint and begins the process for serving the named defendants.
What happened
In Jose Pineda v. Does 1–2, et al., Jose Pineda asked to replace his original complaint with an amended complaint. The amended complaint named four defendants connected to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
The court found that the amended claims arose from the same allegations as the original complaint and that the amendment would not unfairly delay the case or burden the defendants. The court also directed that the Doe defendants be removed from the caption and that the named defendants be listed instead.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted Pineda’s motion for leave to amend. She directed the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the paperwork to the United States Marshals Service for service, and extended the service deadline to 90 days after each summons is issued.
The detailed version
- Pineda v. Does 1–2 · No. 7:25-cv-04552
- Clarke
- Nov. 13, 2025
Background
The court had previously directed the New York Attorney General’s Office, acting for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), to identify the parole officers involved in Pineda’s detainment and arrest on May 8, 2025. The Attorney General’s Office identified ten officers. The court then directed Pineda to amend his complaint to include the defendants identified in that response.
Pineda filed an amended complaint naming Sabrina R. Drayton, “Bureau Chief Serrano,” Senior Parole Officer C. Sutherland, and DOCCS Commissioner Daniel F. Martuscello. The opinion states that none of the four was named in the Attorney General’s response, and that only the commissioner had been named in Pineda’s original complaint. Pineda asked the court to make the amended complaint the operative complaint, meaning the pleading that would control the case.
Ruling
Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the court explained that permission to amend a complaint is generally granted unless the amendment would be futile, made in bad faith, unduly delayed, or unfairly prejudice the opposing party. The court found no undue prejudice or bad faith. It noted that the amended claims arose from the same allegations as the original claims and that the defendants were all DOCCS employees who would likely raise similar defenses.
The court therefore granted Pineda’s motion for leave to amend his original complaint and replace it with the amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Sabrina R. Drayton, “Bureau Chief Serrano,” and Senior Parole Officer C. Sutherland, and an amended summons for Daniel F. Martuscello II as identified in the conclusion. The Clerk was also directed to complete service forms and send the necessary documents to the United States Marshals Service.
Because Pineda had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court directed the Marshals Service to serve the summonses and amended complaint. The court extended the time for service to 90 days after each defendant’s summons is issued, instructed Pineda to request more time if service is not completed, and required him to notify the court of any address change. The Clerk was directed to update the caption by terminating the Doe defendants and listing only the named defendants, and to terminate docket entry 16.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.