Maldonado v. Gunsett
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Judge Briccetti ordered steps to serve defendants and identify unknown officers in Maldonado’s civil-rights case.
Edwin Maldonado, the defendants listed in the appendix, the six still-unidentified John Doe defendants, the Attorney General’s Office, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Edwin Maldonado, representing himself, brought constitutional-rights claims under a federal civil-rights law against correctional and other officials. The court had previously ordered efforts to identify thirteen defendants known only as John or Jane Doe and to serve five named defendants.
The Attorney General identified seven of the thirteen unknown defendants but could not identify the remaining six. Maldonado then filed a second amended complaint with the identified names and any additional information about the six still unidentified defendants.
Judge Briccetti ordered the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and carry out service on the defendants listed in the order’s appendix. He also ordered the Attorney General to review the second amended complaint and provide information about the remaining unknown defendants by February 26, 2022; the court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Gunsett · No. 7:21-cv-03719
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 31, 2022
Background
Edwin Maldonado, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. His amended complaint named five defendants and thirteen additional defendants identified only as John or Jane Doe.
On November 10, 2021, the court ordered the Attorney General’s Office to determine the identities of the thirteen unknown defendants and provide that information to Maldonado and the court. The court also ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the five named defendants: Correction Officer Gunsett, Sergeant Rowe, Correction Officer Miller, Sergeant Maligen, and Deputy Danielle Medbury. The opinion states that the docket did not show that any of those five defendants had been served.
The Attorney General’s Office later identified seven of the thirteen unknown defendants: John and Jane Doe defendants (1) and (8) through (13). It reported that it could not identify John Doe defendants (2) through (7). The court then ordered Maldonado to file a second amended complaint naming the seven identified defendants and providing additional identifying information or descriptions for the six remaining unknown defendants. The court received that complaint on January 24, 2022, and stated that it would be separately docketed.
Court’s Orders
The court instructed the Clerk to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service process receipt and return form and a summons for each defendant listed in the appendix, and to provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve them. The appendix listed the seven defendants identified by the Attorney General along with Gunsett, Rowe, Miller, Maligen, and Medbury.
The court also ordered the Attorney General to review the second amended complaint, identify the remaining John Doe defendants, and provide their names and service addresses to Maldonado and the court by February 26, 2022. The court stated that it would issue another appropriate order at that time.
Other Provisions and Effect
The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Maldonado permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. It also directed him to notify the court in writing if his address changed and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order. The order addressed service and defendant identification; it did not decide whether Maldonado’s constitutional-rights claims were valid.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.