ALI-X v. ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF MAIL ROOM STAFFS

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER directing the Clerk to terminate Vastano as a party defendant. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/28/2020. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KASEEM ALI-X,

1:12-cv-3147 (NLH) (KMW)
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

v.
DAVID MCKISHEN, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Kaseem Ali-X, 000422722B
New Jersey State Prison
PO Box 861
Trenton, NJ 08625
Plaintiff pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2016, Plaintiff Kaseem Ali-X
amended his complaint to replace the unknown defendants, “All
the Employees of the Mail Room Staffs,” with the names of the
employees as party defendants, see ECF No. 57; and
WHEREAS, the second amended complaint listed two proposed
defendants with similar names, “Vastano” and “L. Vastano,”
separately in the caption, see id. at 5; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Court, relying on the caption of
the second amended complaint, presumed these names to refer to
two separate people and issued two sets of summonses to be
served by the U.S. Marshals Service, see ECF No. 65; and

WHEREAS, subsequent developments indicated that “Vastano”
and “L. Vastano” are the same person.

First, although Plaintiff

listed them separately in the caption and list of defendants, he
did not distinguish between the two in the factual portion of
his second amended complaint, see, e.g., ECF No. 57 ¶ 55 (making
allegations against “Vastano,” but not “L. Vastano”); and
WHEREAS, second, the Attorney General’s Office entered an
appearance and defended the action on behalf of “L. Vastano,”
but not “Vastano,” see ECF No. 69; and
WHEREAS, it therefore appears to the Court that Plaintiff
intended to prosecute his action against only one mailroom
employee with the last name of “Vastano.”

Defendant “L.

Vastano” was awarded summary judgment on December 10, 2019, see
ECF No. 100; and
WHEREAS, on December 31, 2019, the Court issued an Order to
Show Cause why it should not order the Clerk to terminate
“Vastano” as a party defendant and directed Plaintiff to file
any objections within twenty (20) days, see ECF No. 106; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has not filed anything with the Court
indicating that “Vastano” and “L. Vastano” are two separate
people against whom Plaintiff had potential claims;
THEREFORE, IT IS on this

28th

day of January, 2020

ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate “Vastano” as a party
defendant; and it is finally
2

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order
upon Plaintiff by regular mail.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

3