Maldonado v. Gunsett
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Judge Briccetti ordered more efforts to identify unnamed defendants in Maldonado’s civil-rights case.
Edwin Maldonado, the Attorney General, and the six remaining unnamed John Doe defendants.
What happened
Maldonado v. Gunsett concerns Edwin Maldonado’s claims under federal civil-rights law against Officer John Gunsett and other defendants, including thirteen initially unnamed people. Maldonado was representing himself and was not required to pay court fees.
The Attorney General identified seven of the thirteen unnamed defendants but said it could not identify the remaining six because records from 2005 had been destroyed or were not routinely maintained. Maldonado then provided additional identifying information, but the Attorney General still could not identify them.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the Attorney General to take any additional reasonable steps needed to identify the six remaining unnamed defendants and to file a report by May 23, 2022, describing those efforts and whether further steps or discovery could help. The order did not decide the merits of Maldonado’s claims.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Gunsett · No. 7:21-cv-03719
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 21, 2022
Background
Edwin Maldonado brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. He was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court filing fees. His amended complaint named thirteen John and Jane Doe defendants whose identities were unknown.
On November 10, 2021, the Court directed the Attorney General to determine the identities of those defendants and provide the information to Maldonado and the Court. On January 10, 2022, the Attorney General identified seven defendants but reported that it could not identify John Doe defendants (2) through (7). It stated that the remaining defendants were allegedly involved in incidents in 2005 and that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision did not routinely maintain staffing information from that time.
Maldonado filed a second amended complaint with additional identifying information. The Court then directed the Attorney General to make another effort to identify the remaining defendants. In a March 21, 2022 letter, the Attorney General reported that it still could not do so because the relevant logbooks and daily chart sheets had been destroyed under Department of Corrections and Community Supervision policy.
Court’s Analysis
The Court was not satisfied that the Attorney General had used all reasonable and appropriate methods to determine the defendants’ identities. The Court noted that the Attorney General had not said whether it had taken steps beyond searching records from the relevant period. As one example, the Court suggested consulting Gerard Guiney, a defendant allegedly involved in the 2005 incident whom the Attorney General had been able to identify.
Ruling
The Court ordered the Attorney General, to the extent it had not already done so, to take additional reasonable and appropriate measures to identify the remaining John Doe defendants. It also ordered the Attorney General to submit a status update by May 23, 2022. The update had to describe all steps taken and state whether further steps or discovery could help identify the defendants. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order addressed the identification process and did not resolve the merits of Maldonado’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.