Gunn v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-11821
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gunn v. Doe, Judge Briccetti ordered service steps and response deadlines in Darrell Gunn’s constitutional-rights case.
Darrell Gunn, the named correction-officer defendants, the Clerk of Court, defense counsel, and the U.S. Marshals Service were affected by the service instructions, complaint treatment, and response deadlines.
What happened
In Gunn v. Doe, Darrell Gunn, who was representing himself and received permission to proceed without paying filing fees, alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. Defense counsel identified the John Doe defendant as Correction Officer Anthony Wells, and Gunn then named Wells in an amended complaint.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the documents needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Wells. The court treated Gunn’s original and amended complaints together as the operative complaint, required the defendants to respond by July 6, 2020, and ordered defense counsel to clarify whether she would accept service for Correction Officer Wesley.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also reminded Gunn that he must ensure service within 90 days after the summons is issued and notify the court of any address change. The court denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order, certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Doe · No. 7:19-cv-11821
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 1, 2020
Background
Darrell Gunn filed a constitutional-rights complaint and was representing himself while proceeding without paying filing fees. The original complaint named a John Doe defendant. Defense counsel later identified that defendant as Correction Officer Anthony Wells, and Gunn’s amended complaint named Wells. The amended complaint also named Correction Officers Patrick Leon McNeil, Peterson, Keith Sposato, and Wesley, but contained no allegations about those defendants.
Court’s actions
The court liberally construed the original and amended complaints together as one operative complaint because Gunn was representing himself. It ordered the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form, issue a summons for Wells, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service so Wells could be served. The court stated that Gunn was responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summons was issued and for requesting an extension if necessary.
The court also ordered defense counsel to notify the court by April 8, 2020, whether she would accept service on behalf of Wesley. The court set July 6, 2020, as the deadline for each named defendant to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the combined operative complaint. It further directed the Clerk and Chambers to mail the order to Gunn.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order directing service-related steps and setting response deadlines; the opinion did not decide whether Gunn’s constitutional-rights allegations were legally valid. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.