The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3:09 pm, Jun 25, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------X U.S. DISTRICT COURT
ANDRAE HALL, 753586, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LO NG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against- 21-CV-2100 (GRB)(AKT)
MR. B, SCCF Security Officer,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------X
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
On April 16, 2021, pro se plaintiff Andrae Hall (“plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee incarcerated
at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility (“SCCF”), filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against SCCF Warden Frenchie1 (“Warden Franchi”) and a SCCF
Security Officer identified as “Mr. B” (together, “defendants”) together with an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Docket Entry (“DE”) DE 1-2. By Memorandum and Order dated
May 19, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and sua
sponte dismissed his claims against Warden Franchi without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and1915A(b). DE 7. The Court ordered service on Mr. B by the United States
Marshal Service once his identity is ascertained with assistance from the Suffolk County Attorney
in accordance with Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75-76 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
By letter dated June 16, 2021, the Suffolk County Attorney apprised the Court “that based
on a review of records relating to the plaintiff and the information provided in the Complaint, the
County is unable to identify the officer at this time.” DE 10. “It is a general principle of tort law
that a tort victim who cannot identify the tortfeasor cannot bring suit.” Valentin, 121 F.3d at 75.
“Even pro se litigants have a responsibility to exercise due diligence in identifying potential John
1 The Warden of the SCCF is Michael Franchi.
Does. . . . A plaintiff exercising due diligence will take concrete and timely steps to ascertain an
officer defendants’ identity, for example by submitting . . . requests under state or federal Freedom
of Information laws, or requests to the Attorney General’s office.” Sosa v. Bustos, No. 17-CV-
0417(ER), 2020 WL 1940550, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020) (citing Barrett v. City of Newburgh,
720 F. App’x 29, 33 (2d Cir. 2017)) (additional citation and quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against the unknown SCCF Security Officer are dismissed without
prejudice to a reinstatement thereof if plaintiff provides the Court with additional information
and/or records regarding the identity of this individual within 120 days from the date of this Order.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to administratively close the case and to serve a copy of this Order to plaintiff at his
address of record and note service on the docket.
SO ORDERED. /s/ Gary R. Brown
_______________________
Dated: June 25, 2021 Gary R. Brown
Central Islip, New York United States District Judge
2