Brown v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought this action alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. Earlier service orders directed service on identified defendants and required the New York State Attorney General or defense counsel to identify two correction officers originally named as “John Doe” and “Rodriguez” John Doe.

The Attorney General first identified “Rodriguez” John Doe as David O. Rodriguez, but Brown later informed the court that the correct person was Carlos J. Rodriguez. Brown also provided a more detailed description of the remaining John Doe defendant. Defense counsel later identified that defendant as “C.O. Lervis Merejo” and supplied an address for service. Defense counsel also provided an address for serving Carl T. Bowen, who had not yet been served because he was on leave.

Court’s Action

The court directed the Clerk to terminate John Doe as a defendant and add Sing Sing Correction Officer Lervis Merejo to the docket. It directed the Clerk to issue a summons for Merejo and an amended summons for Bowen, complete the U.S. Marshals Service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service so that both defendants could be served.

The court stated that Brown was responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the applicable summons was issued, and for requesting an extension if needed. The order did not decide whether Brown’s constitutional-rights allegations were valid.

Appeal-Fee Ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal from this order.