Broadnax v. Hallet et al

Filing 31

ORDER: It is hereby: ORDERED that, on or before May 23, 2022, Plaintiff submit a letter identifying the status of the litigation against Defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin and whether he requests assistance in identifying those defen dants. If Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the litigation against those defendants, he is further ordered to voluntarily dismiss them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) by filing a notice of dismissal on or before May 23, 202 2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, Defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin will be dismissed from the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 5/23/2022.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 5/09/2022) (ama)

Case 1:21-cv-02926-VSB Document 31 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
:
:
CLEVELAND BROADNAX,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
WARDEN MICHELLE HALLET, et al.,
:
Defendants. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------X

21-cv-2926 (VSB)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on April 5, 2021. (Doc. 2.) On October 1,
2021, the New York City Department of Correction filed a waiver of service of summons
unexecuted for Defendants Hallet, Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin. (Doc. 14.) The
Department of Correction identified that Defendant Hallet was no longer an employee of the
agency, there was no Deputy Sanchez at Anna M. Kross Center, there were no matches to
Defendant Sans, and there was more than one Officer Grant, Vincent, and Lubin at Anna M.
Kross Center. (Id.) On March 17, 2022, former Warden Hallet and the remaining defendants in
this action filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. 29.) To date, Defendants Sanchez, Grant,
Vincent, Sans, and Lubin have not answered.
Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court
in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). On April 4, 2022, I issued an order
for Plaintiff to submit a letter to the Court on or before April 22, 2022 indicating whether he
intends to continue pursuing the action against Defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and
Lubin and whether he requests assistance in identifying those defendants. (Doc. 30.) I further

Case 1:21-cv-02926-VSB Document 31 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 2

ordered that, if Plaintiff does not intend to pursue litigation against Defendants Sanchez, Grant,
Vincent, Sans, and Lubin, to voluntarily dismiss those defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) by filing a notice of dismissal on or before April 22, 2022. (Id.)
Plaintiff has not complied with my order and filed a letter indicating the status of the ligation
against Defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin. It is hereby:
ORDERED that, on or before May 23, 2022, Plaintiff submit a letter identifying the
status of the litigation against Defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin and whether
he requests assistance in identifying those defendants. If Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the
litigation against those defendants, he is further ordered to voluntarily dismiss them pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) by filing a notice of dismissal on or before May 23,
2022. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, Defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and
Lubin will be dismissed from the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2022
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge