UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
November 17, 2010
JOSEPH BELILE, 08A3707, PLAINTIFF,
C.O. JOHN DOE #1, C.O. JOHN DOE #2, C.O. JOHN DOE #3 AND SGT. JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael A. Telesca United States District Judge
Plaintiff listed in his complaint several John Doe defendants (Docket # 1). Pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d. Cir. 1997)(per curiam), the Court requested that the Attorney General of the State of New York ascertain the full names of the John Doe defendants plaintiff seeks to sue (Docket # 3).
The Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the Rochester Office has provided plaintiff and the Court with certain information regarding the alleged incident. Because the information does not clearly identify which of the identified persons are the defendants plaintiff seeks to sue, plaintiff is directed to amend his complaint to name the defendants he believes have been identified. To the extent that a defendant may not have been identified, plaintiff may name that defendant, or defendants, as John Doe and attempt to determine the identity during discovery.
Plaintiff is must file an amended complaint as directed above by December 21, 2010.
Rochester, New York
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.