Butler v. John Doe's of East End Task Force

Filing 12

ORDER - For the reasons stated above, the Court VACATES its prior Valentin Order directing the County Attorney's Office to assist Plaintiff in identifying the John Doe Defendants named in the Complaint and ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended co mplaint by November 7, 2011, that contains additional details that will assist the County Attorney's Office in identifying the unnamed Defendants. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 10/4/11. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
MACK BUTLER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
11-CV-3470(JS)(ARL)

-againstJOHN DOES of EAST END TASK FORCE,
Suffolk County Fifth Precinct,
Patchogue, New York; Individually
and in their Official Capacities,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Mack Butler, pro se
#217709
Suffolk County Correctional Facility
100 Center Drive
Riverhead, NY 11901
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On July 19, 2011, incarcerated pro se Plaintiff Mack
Butler (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against “John Does of
East End Task Force, Suffolk County Fifth Precinct, Patchogue,
New York,” alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ordered

the

(Compl. at 3.)

Suffolk

County

On August 8, 2011, the Court

Attorney’s

Office

to

“attempt

to

ascertain the full names and badge numbers of the unidentified
Defendants
Complaint.”

who

participated

(Docket Entry 5.)

in

the

incident

alleged

in

the

On September 13, 2011, the Court

received a letter from the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office,

objecting to the Court’s August 8 Order arguing that: (1) it
violated

the

Gift

and

Loan

Clause

of

the

New

York

State

Constitution; (2) it places the County Attorney’s Office in a
conflict of interest situation; and (3) the Court misapplied
Valentin

v.

Dinkins,

121

F.3d

72

(2d

Cir.

1997).

For

the

reasons that follow, the Court VACATES its August 8, 2011 Order
and ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
BACKGROUND
The
follows:

nature

of

Plaintiff’s

cause

of

action

is

as

On or about January 7, 2011, at approximately 7:50PM

at an “apartment complex” in the village of Patchogue in Suffolk
County, New York, Plaintiff and a friend were “presented by
‘thirty cops,’ half unmarked, and half blue and white vehicles,
that raided the apartment.”
that

an

unidentified

(Compl. at 4.)

number

of

these

Plaintiff asserts

“Cops

and

Detectives”

approached the truck in which Plaintiff and his friend were
sitting “with guns pointed at [their] heads,” and ordered them
out of the vehicle and onto the ground.

(Id.)

Once Plaintiff

was on the ground and in handcuffs, he asserts that “the Police”
punched him in the face and head, threw him to the ground, and
“continue[d] to beat the Plaintiff to death ‘until’ one of the
unknown officers had to stop the beat[ing].”
Plaintiff

does

not

name

any

(Id. at 4-5.)
of

the

individual

Defendants but merely identifies them as “John Does of East End
2

Task Force, Suffolk County Fifth Precinct, Patchogue, New York.”
(Compl. at 3.)

The County Attorney’s Office informs the Court

that the “East End Task Force,” is a “multi-agency task force,
made up of members of the New York City Police Department; the
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office; the DEA; and the Suffolk County
Police

Department.”

(Docket

Entry

11,

at

1.)

The

County

Attorney’s Office asserts that “[a]lthough the Suffolk County
Police Department took [P]laintiff into custody and processed
him at the Fifth Precinct, it is impossible to identify the
officers

whom

[P]laintiff

alleges

assaulted

him,

out

of

the

thirty law enforcement personnel [P]laintiff says were present
at the scene.”

(Id. at 2.)
DISCUSSION

In Valentin, “the Second Circuit made clear that a pro
se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in
identifying a defendant,” Jefferson v. Doe, No. 08-CV-0204, 2010
WL 276198, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2010) (citing Valentin, 121
F.3d 72), and “[t]he district court may pursue any course that
it deems appropriate to further inquiry into the identify of
[unidentified defendants].”

Valentin, 121 F.2d at 76.

“This is

particularly so where the plaintiff is incarcerated, and is thus
unable to carry out a full pre-trial investigation.”

Id. at 75.

Based on the County Attorney’s Office’s description of
the

East

End

Task

Force,

however,
3

the

Court

finds

that

its

Valentin

Order

was

premature,

and

it

is

hereby

VACATED.

Plaintiff stated that there were thirty members of the Task
Force present on the date of the alleged incident, but he does
not identify how many of those thirty Officers were involved in
the alleged incident, the involvement of each individual Officer
(for

example,

the

individual

“stop[ped]

the

beat[ing]”),

or

describe them in any way.
Thus, rather than order the County Attorney’s Office
to produce the names of all Officers present on that date who
may have been involved in the alleged beating, the Court ORDERS
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by November 7, 2011, that
provides

additional

details

including,

but

limited

to:

the

number of Officers involved in the alleged beating; identifying
physical descriptions, such as physical characteristics and what
they were wearing; and a specific explanation, if possible, of
each “John Doe” Defendant’s role in the incident.

No summonses

shall issue at this time and all further proceedings shall be
stayed pending Plaintiff’s submission of his amended complaint.
If Plaintiff timely complies with this Order, the Court may
issue another Valentin order.1

However, if Plaintiff fails to

1

The Court declines to address the merits of the County
Attorney’s Office’s arguments regarding the Gift and Loan
Clause, possible conflicts of interest, and this Court’s
interpretation of Valentin at this time. The County Attorney’s
Office is not barred from reasserting these arguments if the
4

file his amended complaint within the time allotted, this Court
may dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court VACATES its
prior Valentin Order directing the County Attorney’s Office to
assist Plaintiff in identifying the John Doe Defendants named in
the Complaint and ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
by November 7, 2011, that contains additional details that will
assist the County Attorney’s Office in identifying the unnamed
Defendants.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith
and,

therefore,

in

forma

purpose of an appeal.

pauperis

status

is

denied

for

the

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of
this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

October
4 , 2011
Central Islip, NY

Court issues another Valentin order after receiving Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint.
5