Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-11111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bright v. Annucci, Judge Roman identified three defendants for service, replaced “Russo,” and ordered more information about one unidentified officer.
Willie Bright, the newly identified defendants Irma Russo, Anthony Ruvo, and Charlene Cody, and the still-unidentified correction officer whose identity the parties were ordered to investigate.
What happened
In Bright v. Annucci, Willie Bright, representing himself, brought a federal civil-rights lawsuit against several defendants, including people whose identities were unknown. The court had previously asked the New York Attorney General’s Office to help identify those defendants.
The court identified “Russo” as Correction Officer Irma Russo, one unidentified person as Dr. Anthony Ruvo, and another as Nurse Charlene Cody. It ordered the clerk to add Russo, Ruvo, and Cody to the case, prepare service paperwork, and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. Bright must make sure service occurs within 90 days after the summonses are issued and must tell the court if his address changes.
The court could not identify the correction officer who responded to Bright’s complaint of sexual assault on February 28, 2016. Judge Roman ordered Bright to provide more identifying information by February 10, 2020, and ordered the defendants to provide the officer’s identity by March 10, 2019, as stated in the opinion. The order addressed identification and service, not the merits of Bright’s claims.
The detailed version
- Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci · No. 7:18-cv-11111
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
Willie Bright, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants. The complaint included several unidentified defendants. The court had previously identified John Does 1 and 2 and an unknown medical employee as C.O. Yitzchak Sudranski, C.O. Ersan Kahyaoglu, and Nurse Suzanne Roessel. Bright later filed an amended complaint adding Adam Barter, “Russo,” additional John Does, and a Jane Doe.
Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to help from the district court in identifying a defendant. The court therefore directed the New York State Attorney General’s Office to provide the identities of the remaining unnamed defendants. The Attorney General’s Office reported that “OSI employee Russo” was Correction Officer Irma Russo, the “John Doe Mount Vernon Hospital employee” was Dr. Anthony Ruvo, and the “Jane Doe medical employee” was Nurse Charlene Cody.
Service on Newly Identified Defendants
The court ordered the clerk to terminate “Russo” as a defendant and add Irma Russo to the caption and docket. The clerk was also ordered to add Anthony Ruvo and Charlene Cody as defendants. The clerk was directed to prepare U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms, issue summonses, and deliver the required paperwork to the Marshals Service so that service could be made on Russo, Ruvo, and Cody.
The order listed service addresses for each of those defendants. It stated that Bright is responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summons is issued and for requesting an extension if necessary. It also required Bright to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Remaining Unidentified Officer
The defendants were unable to identify the correction officer who responded to Bright’s complaint of sexual assault on February 28, 2016. The court directed Bright to provide further descriptive information to the defendants and the court by February 10, 2020. The order stated that the defendants must provide the officer’s identity to Bright and the court by March 10, 2019, based on Bright’s supplemental description.
After receiving that information, the court stated that it would issue an order directing the clerk to send Bright instructions for serving the unidentified defendant under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also stated that it might substitute the defendant’s proper name on the docket under Rule 15(c). Finally, the clerk was ordered to mail Bright a copy of the order and record proof of mailing on the docket.
Disposition and Effect
This was a supplemental order concerning identification and service of defendants. It did not decide whether Bright’s underlying claims were legally valid or whether any defendant was liable. The court ordered the specified docket changes and service-related steps and required additional information concerning the remaining unidentified correction officer.
Judge
The order was issued by United States District Judge Nelson S. Roman.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.