Clark v. Hutchison
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-02147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Clark v. Hutchinson, Judge Karas added unidentified officers, ordered identification assistance, and set deadlines for an amended complaint.
Cleon Clark, Officers Hutchinson and Martinez, the three unidentified John Doe officers, the City of Mount Vernon’s Corporation Counsel, and the Clerk of Court.
What happened
In Clark v. Hutchinson, Cleon Clark, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Mount Vernon Police Officers Hutchinson and Martinez under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges that Hutchinson and three unidentified officers used excessive force and falsely arrested him on May 6, 2022, and that Martinez used excessive force on July 14, 2022.
The court directed the Clerk to add John Does 1–3 as defendants. It ordered the City of Mount Vernon’s Corporation Counsel to identify Hutchinson, Martinez, and the three unidentified officers, including their badge numbers and service addresses, within 60 days. Clark must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants within 30 days after receiving that information.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas stated that the amended complaint will replace the original complaint and will later be screened by the court. The order did not decide whether Clark’s allegations are true or whether the officers violated his rights.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Hutchison · No. 7:24-cv-02147
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
Cleon Clark, who is incarcerated at the Westchester County Jail and is representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mount Vernon Police Officers Hutchinson and Martinez. Clark alleges that Hutchinson and three unidentified Mount Vernon police officers used excessive force against him and falsely arrested him on May 6, 2022. He also alleges that Martinez used excessive force against him outside an AutoZone store on July 14, 2022.
The court had previously granted Clark permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. This order addressed adding the unidentified officers and helping Clark learn their identities; it did not decide the merits of his claims.
Court’s Actions
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption to add John Does 1–3 as defendants. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses those defendants might assert after they are identified.
The court also ordered the Corporation Counsel for the City of Mount Vernon, described in the order as the attorney for and agent of the Mount Vernon Police Department, to determine the full names and badge numbers of Officers Hutchinson and Martinez and the three John Doe officers, along with addresses where they may be served. The Corporation Counsel must provide that information to Clark and the court within 60 days of the order.
Clark must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After Clark files it, the court will screen the amended complaint and may direct the Clerk to provide the United States Marshals Service with documents and addresses needed for service.
Disposition and Classification
The court directed the caption to be amended, ordered the Corporation Counsel to identify the defendants, and established deadlines for Clark’s amended complaint. It did not dismiss the action, enter judgment, or rule on whether the alleged excessive force or false arrest occurred. The order is classified as a procedural order because it addressed party identification, amendment of the pleadings, and service-related steps rather than the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.