Santana v. Doe
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-04720
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Santana v. Doe, Judge Gorenstein ordered officials to identify the unknown officer Santana seeks to sue.
Fernando Santana, the unidentified NYPD officer he seeks to sue, the New York City Law Department, and the court; the order requires the Law Department to identify the officer and requires Santana to file a replacement third amended complaint.
What happened
In Santana v. Doe, Fernando Santana, who is representing himself, provided enough information to help identify a New York Police Department front-desk officer involved in his May 23, 2021 arrest.
The court ordered the New York City Law Department to find the officer’s identity, badge number, and service address and provide that information to Santana and the court by July 1, 2022.
After receiving the information, Santana must file a third amended complaint within 30 days. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein said that complaint will replace the earlier complaints, and the court will later screen it and address service if needed.
The detailed version
- Santana v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-04720
- Paul Gardephe
- June 10, 2022
Background
Fernando Santana is proceeding without a lawyer. His second amended complaint identified an unknown New York Police Department front-desk officer stationed at Transit Division 11 who allegedly was involved in Santana’s May 23, 2021 arrest. The opinion states that Santana supplied enough information for the NYPD to identify that officer.
Court’s order
The court ordered the New York City Law Department, described in the order as the NYPD’s attorney and agent, to determine the John Doe officer’s identity, badge number, and address where the officer could be served. The Law Department must provide that information to Santana and the court by July 1, 2022.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Santana must file a third amended complaint naming the officer. The new complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court stated that it will screen the third amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk of Court to prepare documents for service by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Effect of the order
This order helps Santana identify and serve the currently unnamed defendant. It does not decide the merits of Santana’s claims or determine whether the officer is liable.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.