Linval v. John Does 1-10
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06551
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Linval v. John Does 1-10, Judge Broderick allowed Jonathan Linval to seek early discovery identifying officers he says searched his home without a warrant.
The order directly affects Jonathan Linval and the unidentified officers he sued by allowing Linval to seek information from the NYPD and United States Marshals Service to identify those officers. It also imposes filing obligations on Linval.
What happened
In Linval v. John Does 1-10, Jonathan Linval sued unidentified members of the United States Marshals Service and/or New York City Police Department, alleging they searched his home without a warrant or consent.
Because Linval did not know the officers’ identities, he asked to issue a subpoena to the NYPD and Marshals before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. The court found that he had shown enough reason to identify the defendants and allowed the request.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the motion. He ordered Linval to file a proposed subpoena by August 7, 2023, and to file an amended complaint naming the officers within 14 days after receiving enough information to identify them.
The detailed version
- Linval v. John Does 1-10 · No. 1:23-cv-06551
- Vernon Broderick
- July 31, 2023
Background
Jonathan Linval filed this action against John Doe defendants identified as numbers 1 through 10. He alleges that the defendants, who he says are members of the United States Marshals Service and/or the New York City Police Department, entered and searched his home without a warrant or his consent. According to the complaint, the officers said they were looking for someone who did not live at Linval’s address, did not provide a warrant, and left a wanted flyer for Justin Lopez with Linval’s home address handwritten on the back.
Linval asserted claims for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or the court-created claim recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. He said he did not know the officers’ identities. He therefore moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on the NYPD and the Marshals, through a Touhy request, to obtain information identifying the officers.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the parties meet and confer at a Rule 26(f) conference. The court may authorize earlier discovery when the requesting party satisfies a flexible standard requiring reasonableness and good cause.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that a warrantless search is generally unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to established exceptions, and that a search inside a home without a warrant is presumed unreasonable. It concluded that Linval had made a first showing of a Fourth Amendment violation. The court also found that the case could not proceed unless the John Doe defendants were identified.
Order
The court granted Linval’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It ordered him to file his proposed subpoena by August 7, 2023. It also ordered him to file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants within 14 days after receiving information sufficient to identify them. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 3.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.