Genao v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-08731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Genao v. City of New York, Judge Ramos directed pro se plaintiff Gabino Genao to file a second amended complaint naming two identified officers.
Gabino Genao, the City of New York, and the correction officers involved in identifying and naming the two previously unidentified defendants, Jamell Moore and Justin Andrews.
What happened
Genao v. City of New York concerns Gabino Genao’s civil-rights lawsuit against the City of New York and correction officers. Genao filed the case without a lawyer and identified two officers only as John Does.
The court had directed the City to identify those officers. The City identified them as Jamell Moore and Justin Andrews, but Genao told the court he had not received that information and filed an amended complaint.
Judge Ramos ordered Genao to file a second amended complaint adding Moore and Andrews as named defendants by February 15, 2021. The order did not decide whether Genao’s constitutional-rights claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Genao v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08731
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 15, 2021
Background
Gabino Genao brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law. He sued the City of New York and several correction officers, including two defendants initially identified only as John Doe.
On October 22, 2020, the court directed the City to identify the John Doe defendants within 60 days. The court also directed Genao to amend his complaint to name those defendants within 30 days after receiving their identities. On December 21, 2020, the City identified the officers as Jamell Moore and Justin Andrews. On January 13, 2021, Genao informed the court that he had not received the City’s letter and filed an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court directed Genao to file a second amended complaint adding Moore and Andrews as named defendants by February 15, 2021. The court stated that it would send Genao a copy of the order and the City’s response to the earlier identification directive at his current address. The order addressed the identification and naming of defendants; it did not decide the merits of Genao’s constitutional-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.