Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2020

Gudanowski v. John Doe, N.Y. State Trooper

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-00111
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gudanowski v. John Doe, Judge Briccetti ordered identification of the unnamed defendants and set rules for future filings.

Who this affects

The order affected plaintiff Paul T. Gudanowski, the Attorney General, and the unnamed John Doe defendants.

What happened

In Gudanowski v. John Doe, N.Y. State Trooper et al., the plaintiff submitted a filing objecting that the Attorney General had not provided the identities of the unnamed defendants he sought to sue. The court said the filing did not actually make a declaration or request relief.

The court gave the Attorney General until May 4, 2020, to identify the unnamed defendants and provide the information to the plaintiff and the court. It also directed the plaintiff to send future correspondence to the Pro Se Clerk rather than directly to the judge’s chambers, warning that submissions sent to chambers would be returned.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered a copy of the order mailed to the plaintiff and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gudanowski v. John Doe, N.Y. State Trooper · No. 7:20-cv-00111
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 21, 2020

Background

Paul T. Gudanowski was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He submitted an April 16, 2020 filing titled a declaration opposing the Attorney General’s failure to provide the names of the unnamed defendants. The court stated that the filing did not contain a declaration and did not request any relief.

Court’s action

The court treated the filing as objecting to the fact that the Attorney General had not yet provided the identities of the unnamed defendants Gudanowski sought to sue. It gave the Attorney General until May 4, 2020, to identify those defendants and provide the information to both Gudanowski and the court. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or explain why the defendants were unnamed.

The court also directed Gudanowski to address all future correspondence to the Pro Se Clerk at the United States District Court address in White Plains, New York, rather than to the judge’s chambers. The court stated that it would disregard and return future submissions sent directly to chambers.

Appeal-related ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. Based on that certification, the court denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not dismiss the case or rule on the merits of the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.