Johnson v. Department of Corrections

Nature of the order

This was a second amended order of service, not a decision on whether Johnson’s constitutional claims were valid. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state actors.

Identification of defendants

The court had previously directed the New York Attorney General’s Office to identify unnamed defendants. The office reported that it had identified Correction Officers Mason Hamilton, Travis Small, and James Makel, as well as Superintendent Robert Morton. It also reported that it could not identify John Doe 4, who allegedly helped John Doe 2 and John Doe 3 search Johnson’s cell and pack and transport his belongings from Downstate Correctional Facility to Great Meadows Correctional Facility.

The court directed Johnson to send the court and the New York Attorney General’s Office any additional information he had about John Doe 4 by June 25, 2021. It extended the office’s deadline to identify the remaining unnamed defendants from May 31, 2021, to July 16, 2021.

Docket and service instructions

The Clerk was directed to remove John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and the Warden of Downstate Correctional Facility from the docket, and to add Hamilton, Small, Makel, Morton, and John Doe 4. The Clerk was also directed to prepare U.S. Marshals Service service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary papers and addresses for serving the newly identified defendants.

The opinion states that a John Doe Deputy of Security had been served at Downstate Correctional Facility, but that this person had been identified as Edward Burnett, who no longer worked there. The court stated that the wrong individual appeared to have been served and directed the Clerk to strike Document #20 from the docket.

Johnson was instructed not to file an amended complaint at that time. The court said it would instruct him to file one after the Attorney General’s Office completed its investigation. The order also stated that Johnson was responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after a summons was issued, requesting an extension if needed, and notifying the court in writing of any address change.

Appeal-related ruling and disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied the ability to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order otherwise directed the identification and service process and did not decide the merits of Johnson’s § 1983 claims.