Almonte v. Doe
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-00818
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Almonte v. Doe, Judge Seibel ordered the New York Attorney General to identify unnamed defendants and required discovery responses in Almonte’s civil-rights case.
Joel Almonte, the unnamed defendants he seeks to identify, the New York Attorney General, and the other defendants who must respond to the required discovery requests.
What happened
Joel Almonte, who is incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, filed Almonte v. Doe without a lawyer. He alleges that defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility on July 31, 2022. The opinion does not describe the alleged violations in detail.
The court ordered the New York Attorney General to identify the unnamed Department of Security defendant, extraction-team defendants, and Area Sgt., including their badge numbers and service addresses, within 60 days. After receiving that information, Almonte must file an amended complaint naming them within 30 days. The court also applied a discovery rule requiring defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after the complaint is served.
Judge Seibel’s order did not decide whether Almonte’s allegations are legally valid. It directed the identification of the unnamed defendants, provided an amended complaint form, and required the standard discovery process to proceed.
The detailed version
- Almonte v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-00818
- Cathy Seibel
- Feb. 27, 2024
Background
Joel Almonte filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer, alleging that defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility. The opinion states that he is currently incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility. The complaint names an unidentified Department of Security defendant, unidentified members of an extraction team, and an unidentified Area Sgt. The alleged deprivation occurred on July 31, 2022.
Almonte originally filed the action in the Western District of New York. That court transferred the matter to the Southern District of New York because the events occurred at Fishkill Correctional Facility, which the opinion says is located in this district. The court had previously allowed Almonte to proceed without prepaying filing fees, while noting that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.
Identification of Unnamed Defendants
The court relied on the rule that a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to the court’s assistance in identifying an unnamed defendant. It found that Almonte had supplied enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the unnamed defendants involved in the alleged July 31, 2022 deprivation.
The court ordered the New York Attorney General, as the attorney for and agent of that department, to determine the identity and badge number of each unnamed defendant and the addresses where those defendants could be served. The Attorney General must provide that information to Almonte and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Almonte must file an amended complaint naming the defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After it is filed, the court will screen it and, if necessary, direct the Clerk of Court to prepare the documents needed for service by the United States Marshals Service.
Discovery
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer court-ordered standard discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Defendants must serve their responses within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition and Scope
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and complaint to the New York Attorney General, provided an amended complaint form, confirmed that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies, and directed that Almonte receive the order and an information package. The order did not resolve the merits of Almonte’s civil-rights allegations or dismiss the action.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.