Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-04373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Urgiles v. Department of Corrections, Judge Halpern directed Felix Urgiles to amend his complaint identifying John Doe defendants or risk dismissal.
Felix Urgiles was required to provide more information to identify the unnamed defendants; the case could be dismissed if he did not do so.
What happened
In Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State, Felix Urgiles sued the Department and other defendants, including unidentified correction officers, nurses, and doctors. The New York Attorney General said it could not identify the John Doe defendants from the information provided.
The court directed Urgiles, if he chose, to file an amended complaint by January 25, 2021. The amended complaint had to provide details about the alleged mistreatment, the number of defendants, and physical descriptions that could help identify them. It would replace, rather than add to, the original complaint.
Judge Philip M. Halpern said the court would screen any amended complaint and could then direct the Attorney General to help identify the defendants. The court warned that the case may be dismissed if Urgiles did not provide the needed information. It also denied payment-waiver status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State · No. 7:20-cv-04373
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
Felix Urgiles brought this action against the Department of Corrections of New York State and other defendants. The complaint named unidentified “John Doe” defendants. The order refers to allegations that correction officers, nurses, and doctors mistreated Urgiles, but it does not describe the underlying events or legal claims in detail.
The New York State Attorney General reported in a November 17, 2020 letter, docketed on December 16, 2020, that it could not identify the John Doe defendants based on the information then provided.
Court’s directive
The court directed Urgiles, if he wished to continue, to file an amended complaint by January 25, 2021. The amended complaint had to include specific dates and times for the alleged mistreatment, the number of correction officers, nurses, and doctors he sought to name as defendants, and physical descriptions of those individuals, including gender, height, approximate weight, hair color, skin tone, and other identifying features.
The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. After an amended complaint was filed, the court would screen it and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Attorney General to identify the John Doe defendants.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern warned that the action may be dismissed if Urgiles failed to file an amended complaint containing information useful for identifying the John Doe defendants. The order did not decide whether the alleged mistreatment occurred or whether Urgiles’s claims had legal merit. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.