Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2024

Syllas v. Doe 1

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:24-cv-01315
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Syllas v. Doe 1, Judge Karas ordered identification of unnamed officers so Romy Syllas could amend his civil-rights complaint.

Who this affects

Romy Syllas, the five unnamed Green Haven Correctional Emergency Response Team officers, the New York State Attorney General, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

What happened

Syllas v. Doe 1 concerns Romy Syllas’s pro se lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law. Syllas alleges that five unnamed Correction Emergency Response Team officers violated his constitutional rights when they removed him from his cell at Green Haven Correctional Facility on October 7, 2023.

The court ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify the officers, provide their badge numbers and service addresses, and give that information to Syllas and the court within 60 days. Syllas then has 30 days to file an amended complaint naming them. The court has not yet ruled on whether his claims have merit.

Judge Karas also directed the Clerk of Court to send the Attorney General a copy of the order and complaint and to send Syllas an information package. After an amended complaint is filed, the court will screen it and may direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Syllas v. Doe 1 · No. 7:24-cv-01315
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Mar. 7, 2024

Background

Romy Syllas, who is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that five unnamed Correction Emergency Response Team officers violated his federal constitutional rights when they removed him from his cell at Green Haven Correctional Facility on October 7, 2023. The defendants are identified as John Doe #1 through John Doe #5 because Syllas does not yet know their names.

The court had previously granted Syllas permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion notes that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time under the applicable statute.

Identification of the John Doe Defendants

The court applied the rule that a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying an unnamed defendant. The court found that Syllas had provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the five officers who allegedly removed him from his cell.

The court ordered the New York State Attorney General, identified in the opinion as the attorney and agent for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, to determine each officer’s identity and badge number and the address where that officer could be served. The Attorney General must provide the information to Syllas and the court within 60 days of the order.

Amended Complaint and Next Steps

Within 30 days after receiving the identifying information, Syllas must file an amended complaint naming the defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After Syllas files it, the court will screen the amended complaint. If necessary, the court may direct the Clerk of Court to prepare service documents with the defendants’ addresses and deliver them to the U.S. Marshals Service for service.

Disposition

The order addresses identification of unnamed defendants and the next steps for pleading and service. It does not decide whether Syllas’s constitutional claims are legally sufficient or whether the defendants violated his rights. Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and complaint to the New York State Attorney General and to send Syllas an information package.

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.