Best v. Merchant
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Best v. Merchant, Judge Woods ordered New York City’s Law Department to identify unnamed defendants and told Best how to amend her complaint.
Hilary A. Best, the unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants, the New York City Law Department, and the New York City Department of Corrections.
What happened
In Best v. Merchant, Hilary A. Best sued James Merchant and others, including unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The court had previously partially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss but had not addressed the claims against the Doe defendants because they had not been served.
Because Best was representing herself, the court said she was entitled to help identifying a defendant. It ordered the New York City Law Department to find the names, badge numbers, and service addresses of the Doe defendants allegedly involved in transferring Best from Rikers Island to Creedmoor Psychiatric Center on or about December 4, 2012.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the Law Department to provide that information within 60 days. Best must then file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendants within 30 days after receiving it; that complaint will replace the original. The order also clarified that Best still had to meet a separate 21-day deadline to amend claims against Defendant Fontanez and the City of New York.
The detailed version
- Best v. Merchant · No. 1:21-cv-00779
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
Hilary A. Best, who was representing herself, sued James Merchant, a New York City correction officer, and other defendants. Her complaint also named John and Jane Doe defendants. Best alleged that these unnamed defendants transferred her from Rikers Island to Creedmoor Psychiatric Center on or about December 4, 2012.
The court had previously issued an opinion partially granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. That earlier opinion did not address Best’s claims against the Doe defendants because they had not been served and had not appeared in the case.
Identification of Doe Defendants
The court relied on a Second Circuit rule stating that a self-represented litigant is entitled to assistance from the court in identifying a defendant. The court found that Best had provided enough information for the New York City Department of Corrections to identify the Doe defendants.
The court therefore ordered the New York City Law Department, identified as the attorney and agent for the Department of Corrections, to determine each Doe defendant’s identity, badge number, and address where that defendant could be served. The Law Department must provide the information to Best and the court within 60 days of the order.
Amended Complaint and Disposition
Within 30 days after receiving the identification information, Best must file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After Best files it, the court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, ask the defendants to waive formal service.
Judge Gregory H. Woods clarified that this order concerned Best’s obligation to amend her complaint concerning the Doe defendants. It did not remove her separate obligation, arising from the earlier opinion, to file an amended complaint within 21 days concerning any claims against Defendant Fontanez and the City of New York that the court had allowed her to replead. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Best a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.