Alle v. D.S.1. Acting Superintendent
- Nelson Roman
- 7:26-cv-05152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In José V. Alle v. D.S.1., Judge Roman ordered service and identification of unnamed prison officers without deciding the claims.
The self-represented plaintiff; the four identified Fishkill Correctional Facility personnel; the four unidentified correctional officers; the New York Attorney General; the Clerk of Court; and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In José V. Alle v. D.S.1. Acting Superintendent (Angelene Stevenson), et al., the self-represented plaintiff brought a civil-rights case under federal law based on events he says occurred while he was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility. He named four identified prison personnel and four unidentified correctional officers, seeking unspecified relief.
Because the plaintiff was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the identified defendants. Those defendants must respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after receiving the summons and complaint. The court also directed the state Attorney General to identify the four unnamed officers.
Judge Roman ordered the Attorney General to provide the unnamed officers’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses within 60 days. The plaintiff must then file an amended complaint within 30 days after receiving that information. The order did not decide whether the plaintiff’s claims are legally valid.
The detailed version
- Alle v. D.S.1. Acting Superintendent · No. 7:26-cv-05152
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
The plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Wallkill Correctional Facility, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state authority. The opinion says that the requested relief was unspecified and that the claims arose from events allegedly occurring at Fishkill Correctional Facility.
The complaint names Acting Superintendent Angelene Stevenson, Lieutenant J. Kucel, Sergeant L. Stojkaj, Correctional Officer M. Hall, and four unidentified correctional officers. The unidentified officers are described as correctional officers assigned to Fishkill on November 12, 2025, who allegedly observed the plaintiff bleeding while he was returning from the commissary through an area called “Delta” toward Housing Unit L, or “L dorm.”
Service on Identified Defendants
The court had previously allowed the plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because of that status, the plaintiff may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Stevenson, Kucel, Stojkaj, and Hall, complete service forms with their service addresses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. The plaintiff must notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court stated that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action.
Discovery
The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified court-ordered discovery requests. Stevenson, Kucel, Stojkaj, and Hall must serve responses within 120 days after service of the summonses and complaint. Their responses must quote each discovery request verbatim.
Identifying the Unnamed Defendants
The court directed the Attorney General of New York, as the attorney and agent for the state corrections department, to determine and provide the identities, badge numbers, and service addresses of the four unidentified defendants. That information must be provided to the plaintiff and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, the plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individuals and providing their badge numbers and service addresses. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and may later issue an order directing service on the newly identified defendants.
Disposition
The court issued an order directing service on the identified defendants and directing efforts to identify the unnamed defendants. It did not rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims or determine whether any defendant violated the law.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.