DiDonna v. Mass
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-05417
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In DiDonna v. Mass, Judge Halpern ordered help locating defendants and extended service time, without deciding the underlying claims.
Louis DiDonna, defendants Robert W. Mass, Connor M. Stewart, and Ketchum, the New York State Attorney General, the Clerk of Court, and the United States Marshals Service.
What happened
In DiDonna v. Mass, Louis DiDonna said Mass and Stewart injured him during a March 15, 2021 arrest; Ketchum was added in an amended complaint.
The court ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify Mass and Stewart’s badge numbers and service addresses, provide that information within 60 days, and assist with arranging service on all three defendants. It also extended DiDonna’s service deadline by 90 days from the order’s date.
Judge Philip M. Halpern terminated the pending motion and denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether DiDonna’s claims were valid.
The detailed version
- DiDonna v. Mass · No. 7:22-cv-05417
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 17, 2022
Background
The court had previously directed service on Sgt. Robert W. Mass and Trooper Connor M. Stewart and applied Local Civil Rule 33.2. The United States Marshal later returned the service paperwork unexecuted, stating that Mass and Stewart could not be located at the addresses provided. DiDonna’s time to serve them expired on November 1, 2022. Before that deadline, he asked for more time and requested help serving Ketchum, who had been added in an amended complaint.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a self-represented litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. It found that the amended complaint provided enough information for the New York State Police to identify Mass and Stewart, whom DiDonna alleged had injured him during his arrest.
Order
The court ordered the New York State Attorney General, identified as the attorney for and agent of the New York State Police, to determine Mass and Stewart’s badge numbers and the addresses where they could be served. The Attorney General had to provide that information to DiDonna and the court within 60 days. If either defendant was a former New York State Police employee or official, the Attorney General had to provide residential address or addresses where that person could be served.
After receiving the information, the court would treat the amended complaint as further amended for those defendants and direct the Clerk of Court to complete the service form with addresses for Mass, Stewart, and Ketchum and send the necessary documents to the United States Marshals Service. Because Ketchum was not a New York State employee, the Attorney General did not have to provide an address for him; the court would instead direct service at the address listed in the amended complaint.
The court extended DiDonna’s time to serve Mass, Stewart, and Ketchum by an additional 90 days from the order’s date. It stated that DiDonna could request another extension if service was not completed by then. The Clerk was directed to mail the order and amended complaint to the New York State Attorney General, mail the order to DiDonna, and terminate the motion pending at Document 22. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
What the order did not decide
This was a service and case-management order. It did not decide the merits of DiDonna’s claims or determine whether Mass, Stewart, or Ketchum was legally responsible for the alleged injury.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.