Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 23, 2020

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:20-cv-09840
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Woods identified defendants and set amendment and response deadlines in a federal civil-rights case.

Who this affects

Peter Rodriguez and the City of New York, Captain Moise, Captain Gibson, Officer Williams, Officer Galvezvskty, and Correction Officer Ferrero.

What happened

Peter Rodriguez, who was incarcerated at the Manhattan Detention Complex, filed this federal civil-rights case without a lawyer against the City of New York and initially unidentified defendants. The court had directed the New York City Law Department to identify those defendants.

The Law Department provided the identities of the two unidentified defendants and mailed the information to Rodriguez. Rodriguez submitted an amended complaint the same day, but the court gave him until January 29, 2021, to file a second amended complaint using that information.

If Rodriguez did not file a second amended complaint, the court said his first amended complaint would remain the operative complaint. The court also requested that the named defendants waive formal service and directed them to answer or otherwise respond by February 19, 2021. Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rodriguez v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09840
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Dec. 23, 2020

Background

Peter Rodriguez brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at the Manhattan Detention Complex. He initially named two defendants as “John Doe” defendants. Because Rodriguez was representing himself, the court issued an order under Valentin v. Dinkins directing assistance in identifying those defendants.

On December 21, 2020, the New York City Law Department filed a letter identifying the two defendants and mailed the letter to Rodriguez. The court was then informed that the Pro Se Office had received an amended complaint from Rodriguez on December 21, the same day the Law Department mailed the identifying information.

Order

The court directed Rodriguez to file a second amended complaint by January 29, 2021, if he wished to use the information provided by the Law Department. If he did not file a second amended complaint by that date, the court stated that his first amended complaint would be treated as the operative complaint.

If Rodriguez chose not to amend, the court requested that the City of New York, Emergency Services Unit Captain Moise, Captain Gibson, Emergency Services Unit Officer Williams, Emergency Services Unit Officer Galvezvskty, and Correction Officer Ferrero waive service. The court directed those defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint by February 19, 2021. The order did not decide the merits of Rodriguez’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.