Latouche v. Daniel F. Martuscello III
Valery Latouche v. Daniel F. Martuscello III; Carol A. Moores; Susanna Nayshuler; Razia K. Ferdous; Michael D’Amore; John Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:26-cv-04016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Valery Latouche v. Daniel F. Martuscello III, Judge Halpern ordered service and identification of a John Doe defendant without deciding the claims.
Valery Latouche, the five named defendants, the unidentified John Doe defendant, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court, and the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
What happened
Valery Latouche v. Daniel F. Martuscello III concerns Latouche’s claims under a federal civil-rights law against prison and medical officials. The court had allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees, and he is representing himself.
The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and have the U.S. Marshals Service serve Martuscello, Moores, Nayshuler, Ferdous, and D’Amore. It also ordered the New York Attorney General’s Office to identify the unnamed Sing Sing health-services director and provide an address for service.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered Latouche to file an amended complaint naming that person within 30 days after receiving the identifying information. The order addressed service and identification procedures; it did not decide whether Latouche’s claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Latouche v. Daniel F. Martuscello III · No. 7:26-cv-04016
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
Valery Latouche, who the opinion says is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. He is proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously granted permission for him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service on Named Defendants
Because Latouche was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he was entitled to assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary papers to serve Daniel F. Martuscello III, Carol A. Moores, Susanna Nayshuler, Razia K. Ferdous, and Michael D’Amore.
The court stated that if the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Latouche should request an extension of time. It also required him 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 Defendant
Latouche’s complaint identified an unnamed John Doe Health Services Director at Sing Sing and supplied enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify that person, according to the opinion. The court ordered the Office of the New York State Attorney General, described in the opinion as counsel for and an agent of that department, to determine John Doe’s identity and service address within 60 days of the order and provide that information to Latouche and the court.
Latouche must file an amended complaint naming John Doe within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After it is filed, the court will screen it and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to arrange service on the newly identified defendant.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order directing service on the five named defendants and requiring identification of the John Doe defendant. The order did not decide the merits of Latouche’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.