Gunn v. Doe

Background

Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against correctional officials assigned to Green Haven Correctional Facility while he was incarcerated there. The defendants included Patrick Leon McNeil, Peterson, Keith Sposato, Wesley, and an unidentified “John Doe” officer. The court had granted Gunn permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront in an order dated January 23, 2020.

Service on Identified Defendants

Because Gunn was proceeding without paying the fee upfront, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the time to serve McNeil, Peterson, Sposato, and Wesley until 90 days after summonses were issued for them. It instructed the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms with the defendants’ service addresses, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

Identification of John Doe Defendant

The court found that Gunn had provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the John Doe defendant. According to the order, the unidentified officer was assigned to Green Haven’s “E-Block” as a “first officer” during the “third tour” on June 1, 2017.

The court ordered the New York Attorney General, as the attorney for and agent of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, to determine the John Doe officer’s identity, badge number, and service address and provide that information to Gunn and the court by March 27, 2020. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Gunn had to file an amended complaint naming the defendant and stating the service address. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue another order directing service.

Other Instructions and Disposition

The court instructed Gunn to notify the court of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. It directed the Clerk to mail the order and an information package to Gunn and to send the order and complaint to the New York Attorney General. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order addressed service and related case-management matters. It did not decide whether Gunn’s federal or state-law claims would succeed.