Scott v. John Doe Cert Officer-A
Damon Scott v. John Doe Cert Officer-A; John Doe Cert Officer-B; John Doe Cert Officer-C; Michael Capra, Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-09276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Damon Scott v. John Doe Cert Officer-A, Judge Karas ordered service steps and identification of three unnamed officers in Scott’s excessive-force case.
Damon Scott, Superintendent Michael Capra, the three unnamed corrections officers, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Damon Scott sued Superintendent Michael Capra and three unnamed corrections officers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene during a cell search. Scott is incarcerated and is representing himself.
Because Scott was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve Capra. The court also ordered the New York State Attorney General’s Office to identify the three unnamed officers and their service information.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered the Attorney General’s Office to provide that information within 60 days, required Scott to file an amended complaint within 30 days after receiving it, and required Capra to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. The order did not decide whether Scott’s claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Scott v. John Doe Cert Officer-A · No. 7:25-cv-09276
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Damon Scott, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that three unnamed Corrections Emergency Response Team officers and Superintendent Michael Capra used excessive force and failed to intervene to protect him during a November 10, 2022 cell search. The court had previously granted Scott permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service on Capra
Because Scott was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form for Capra, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve him. Service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued; if it does not, Scott should request an extension. The court also directed Scott to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Identifying the unnamed officers
The court ordered the New York State Attorney General’s Office to identify the three unnamed officers, including their badge numbers and addresses where they may be served. The Attorney General’s Office must provide that information to Scott and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Scott must file an amended complaint naming the officers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After Scott files it, the court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to prepare service forms and send the required documents to the Marshals Service.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Capra must serve responses to those standard discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in his responses.
Ruling and effect
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered the Clerk to issue the summons for Capra, complete the service form with Capra’s address, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to send the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General’s Office, mail an information package to Scott, and apply Local Civil Rule 33.2. This order addressed service, identification of unnamed defendants, and discovery; it did not decide the merits of Scott’s excessive-force or failure-to-intervene claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.