The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
CHOYCE A. HARDIN,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM &
ORDER
-against- 25-CV-2820 (GRB)(ARL)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, DETECTIVE LT. ANTHONY
CALANDRILLO, DETECTIVE BERRY, JOHN DOE
OFFICERS,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
On September 4, 2025, Choyce Hardin (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se, filed an Amended
Complaint naming Suffolk County, Detective Lt. Anthony Calandrillo, Detective Berry, and
unidentified Suffolk County “John Doe” police officers (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Docket
Entry (“DE”) 11.) Having already granted Plaintiff IFP status, (see Mem. & Order, DE 9), the
Court orders service of the summonses and amended complaint upon the defendants by the United
States Marshal Service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
However, given that the identities of the “John Doe” defendants are unknown to Plaintiff
at this time, the Court requests, pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75-76 (2d Cir. 1997)
(per curiam), that the Suffolk County Attorney ascertain the full names and service addresses of
the individuals involved in the events alleged in the amended complaint. (See DE 11.) To be clear
and for the avoidance of any doubt, the Suffolk County Attorney shall provide the identity and
contact information for any individual(s) involved in Plaintiff’s challenged arrest, regardless of
the date. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended complaint together
with this order on the Suffolk County Attorney, and the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office is
requested to attempt to ascertain the full names of the unidentified defendants and to provide their
names and the address(es) where such defendants can be served to the Court and to Plaintiff within
thirty (30) days of the date that this Order is served upon it.
The Suffolk County Attorney need not undertake to defend or indemnify these individuals
at this juncture. This Order merely provides a means by which the Plaintiff may name and properly
serve these defendants as instructed by the Second Circuit in Valentin. Once the information is
provided to the Court by the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office, Plaintiff’s amended complaint
shall be deemed amended to reflect the full names of these defendants, a summons shall be issued
to each defendant, and the USMS shall effect service.
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). Although Plaintiff has consented to
receive electronic notifications in this case (see DE 3), the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed
to also serve a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record and to note service on the
docket. In addition, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended complaint together
with this order on the Suffolk County Attorney, and the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office is
requested to attempt to ascertain the full names of the unidentified defendants and to provide their
names and the address(es) where such defendants can be served to the Court and to Plaintiff within
thirty (30) days of the date that this Order is served upon it.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gary R. Brown
_______________________
Dated: September 22, 2025 GARY R. BROWN
Central Islip, New York United States District Judge
2