Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 9, 2023

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, Magistrate Judge Netburn added seven defendants and extended the service-waiver deadline.

Who this affects

Umar Alli and the seven individuals added as defendants: C.O.E. Harris, C.O.R. Reid, C.O.K. White, C.O. J. Rodriguez, C.O. F. Dawkins, C.O. P. Ritter, and Captain K. Parris. The order also affected the service-waiver deadline and required the Clerk to amend the caption.

What happened

In Alli v. Renee, Umar Alli, representing himself, alleged that Department of Correction officers assaulted him on October 7, 2021. The court had used a process to help identify officers whose names Alli did not know and had changed the incident date from October 8 to October 7.

The court ordered that seven identified individuals be added to the case: C.O.E. Harris, C.O.R. Reid, C.O.K. White, C.O. J. Rodriguez, C.O. F. Dawkins, C.O. P. Ritter, and Captain K. Parris. The Clerk was asked to update the case caption, and the deadline for confirming waiver of service was extended from January 9 to January 13, 2023.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order on January 9, 2023. The order addressed the case's parties and service process; it did not decide whether the alleged assault occurred or whether Alli was entitled to relief.

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
Jan. 9, 2023

Background

Umar Alli filed the case while representing himself. He alleged that Department of Correction officers assaulted him on October 8, 2021, but he did not know the officers' names. The court therefore directed the City of New York to help identify the people involved. This identification procedure is commonly used when a plaintiff initially knows that an unnamed person may be responsible but does not know that person's identity.

The City identified some individuals and requested a stay because an investigation was pending. The court later added those individuals and ordered service. After the City reported that the incident may have occurred on October 7 rather than October 8, the court treated the complaint as amended so that references to October 8 referred to October 7. With Alli's consent, the defendants identified in connection with the alleged October 8 incident were dismissed, and the court began a new identification process concerning the alleged October 7 incident.

Order

The later identification process produced seven individuals allegedly involved in the October 7 incident: C.O.E. Harris, Shield No. 555; C.O.R. Reid, Shield No. 8637; C.O.K. White, Shield No. 8507; C.O. J. Rodriguez, Shield No. 9665; C.O. F. Dawkins, Shield No. 7198; C.O. P. Ritter, Shield No. 7994; and Captain K. Parris, Shield No. 1784.

Because the court had ordered service on those individuals but had not separately amended the caption under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn ordered that all seven be added to the case and asked the Clerk to amend the caption. The court also extended the deadline for confirming waiver of service from January 9, 2023, to January 13, 2023.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order did not resolve the truth of Alli's assault allegations, determine liability, or decide whether he was entitled to damages or other relief. It concerned only adding identified individuals as defendants and managing service of the case.

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.