Johnson v. The City of New York
- Willis
- 1:23-cv-03091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Glenn Johnson v. City of New York, Judge Willis granted defendants’ request, ordering Johnson to answer an identification question and setting a deadline for defendants.
Glenn Johnson must answer the defendants’ identification interrogatory by November 1, 2023. The City of New York and Correction Officer McCutchen must comply with the court’s identification order within 30 days after receiving his responses.
What happened
Glenn Johnson, representing himself, alleges that two correction officers failed to intervene when inmates attacked him at the Eric M. Taylor Center on or about June 1, 2022. He sued the City of New York, Correction Officer McCutchen, and an unidentified correction officer.
The City and Officer McCutchen asked the court to require Johnson to answer an identification question about the unidentified officer. They also asked for more time to comply with the court’s order requiring efforts to identify that officer. The defendants said they had reviewed records and interviewed Officer McCutchen but had not identified the officer.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted the request. She ordered Johnson to answer the identification question by November 1, 2023, and directed the defendants to comply with the identification order within 30 days after receiving his responses.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03091
- Willis
- Oct. 25, 2023
Background
Glenn Johnson, a self-represented plaintiff, alleges that on or about June 1, 2022, while he was in the custody of the Department of Correction at the Eric M. Taylor Center, two correction officers failed to intervene when inmates attacked him. Johnson alleges that one inmate used a makeshift weapon to lacerate his eyelid. He brought claims against the City of New York, Correction Officer McCutchen, and a correction officer identified as John Doe.
The court had previously ordered the New York City Law Department to try to determine the John Doe officer’s identity, badge number, and service address. This type of order is commonly called a Valentin order. The defendants stated that they reviewed officer logbooks and legal schedules for the incident date and interviewed Officer McCutchen, but these efforts had not identified the John Doe officer. They said Johnson was the only person with information such as the incident’s time, the officer’s description, and the specific location, and requested that he answer an identification interrogatory, meaning a written question seeking information about the officer’s identity.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted the request. The order directed Johnson to respond to the defendants’ identification interrogatory by November 1, 2023. It also directed the defendants to comply with the Valentin order within 30 days after receiving Johnson’s responses. The clerk was asked to mail a copy of the order to Johnson.
Effect of the Order
This order addresses discovery and the procedure for identifying the remaining John Doe defendant. The opinion does not resolve the merits of Johnson’s allegations against the correction officers or the City.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.