Broadnax v. Hallet
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-02926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cleveland Broadnax v. Hallet, Judge Broderick ordered Broadnax to clarify whether he would pursue the action against five defendants needing identification.
Cleveland Broadnax and Defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin were affected by the order. Broadnax was required to state by April 22, 2022, whether he would continue pursuing the action against those defendants or voluntarily dismiss them.
What happened
In Cleveland Broadnax v. Hallet, the court addressed problems identifying and serving five defendants: Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin. The Department of Correction reported that some names did not match employees, that there was no Deputy Sanchez at the identified facility, and that multiple people matched some names. Former Warden Hallet and the remaining defendants answered the complaint, but those five defendants had not answered.
The court ordered Broadnax to send a letter by April 22, 2022, stating whether he wanted to continue the action against those five defendants and, if so, asking the court for help identifying them. If he did not want to continue, the court ordered him to voluntarily dismiss those defendants by filing a notice of dismissal by the same date.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on April 4, 2022. The order did not decide the underlying claims; it set a deadline for Broadnax to clarify how he wanted to proceed and directed the Clerk to mail him a copy.
The detailed version
- Broadnax v. Hallet · No. 1:21-cv-02926
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 4, 2022
Background
Cleveland Broadnax filed the complaint on April 5, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the New York City Department of Correction filed an unexecuted waiver of service for Defendants Hallet, Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin. The Department reported that Hallet was no longer employed by the agency; that there was no Deputy Sanchez at Anna M. Kross Center; that it found no matches for Sans; and that more than one Officer Grant, Vincent, and Lubin worked at Anna M. Kross Center.
Former Warden Hallet and the remaining defendants filed an answer on March 17, 2022. As of the order, Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin had not answered.
Court’s Order
The court cited Valentin v. Dinkins, which provides that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying a defendant. The court ordered Broadnax to submit a letter by April 22, 2022, stating whether he intended to continue pursuing the action against Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin and whether he wanted the court’s assistance identifying them.
If Broadnax did not intend to continue the litigation against those defendants, the court ordered him to voluntarily dismiss them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) by filing a notice of dismissal by April 22, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Broadnax.
Disposition and Classification
This was a procedural order concerning defendant identification and how the case should proceed. The court did not rule on the merits of Broadnax’s claims and did not dismiss any defendants in the order itself. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order on April 4, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.