Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 25, 2022

Alli v. Renee

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:21-cv-09470
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Alli v. Renee, Judge Netburn ordered identification of unnamed defendants so the pro se plaintiff could serve them.

Who this affects

Umar Alli, the unidentified correction officers and correction captain he sought to sue, and the Law Department representing the Department of Correction.

What happened

In Alli v. Renee, Umar Alli sued defendants connected with the George R. Vierno Center, including people whose names he did not know. His complaint provided enough information for the Department of Correction to identify them.

The unnamed defendants were correction officers involved in a physical altercation with Alli at the facility on October 7, 2021, and the correction captain who supervised those officers that day. The court also required information about where the defendants could be served.

Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Law Department to identify each person, provide the person’s badge number and service address, and give that information to Alli and the court within 30 days. The order also addressed electronic service waivers for current or former Department of Correction employees or officials.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Alli v. Renee · No. 1:21-cv-09470
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Oct. 25, 2022

Background

Umar Alli proceeded without a lawyer and sued defendants identified in the caption as including “G.R.V.C. Warden Renee” and others. His complaint described unidentified defendants whom he sought to sue: correction officers who became involved in a physical altercation with him at the George R. Vierno Center on October 7, 2021, and the immediate supervisor of those officers, identified as a correction captain.

Court’s Action

The court relied on Valentin v. Dinkins, which provides that a person representing himself is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying an unnamed defendant. The court found that Alli had supplied enough information for the Department of Correction to identify the unnamed defendants.

The court ordered the Law Department, which represents the Department of Correction, to determine each unidentified defendant’s identity, badge number, and address where that person could be served. If a defendant was a current or former Department of Correction employee or official, the Law Department was instructed to note that an electronic request for a service waiver could be made under the electronic-service agreement for cases involving Department of Correction defendants, instead of personal service at a Department of Correction facility. If a defendant worked or had worked at a Department of Correction facility but was not a current or former Department of Correction employee or official, the Law Department had to provide a residential service address.

Deadline and Disposition

Judge Sarah Netburn required the Law Department to provide the information to Alli and the court within 30 days of the order. This was a procedural order addressing identification and service of unnamed defendants; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.