Lashway v. Fisher et al
Filing
52
DECISION & ORDER denying as moot 7 motion seeking to compel the defendants to identify the remaining John Doe defendants and for appointment of counsel and denying as moot 41 motion for appointment of counsel and return of "lawsuit papers." Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/14/2015. Copy of Decision & Order sent to Steven A. Lashway by First Class Mail on 9/14/2015.(KAH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
STEVEN A. LASHWAY,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-CV-6563CJS
v.
BRIAN S. FISHER, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
The docket in this case reflects that a motion filed by plaintiff, Steven A. Lashway
(“Lashway”), to compel defendants to identify several John Doe defendants and to appoint
counsel is still pending before the Court. (Docket # 7). Also pending before the Court is
Lashway’s motion for appointment of counsel and return of “lawsuit papers.” (Docket # 41).
For the reasons stated below, these motions are denied as moot.
In response to previous orders issued by United States District Judge Frank P.
Geraci, Jr., pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997) (Docket ## 4, 6), counsel
for defendants sent a letter dated November 7, 2014 to the Pro Se Law Clerk indicating that she
was unable to identify John Does 1-5, 11, 13-18. In the same letter, counsel for defendants
identified John Doe 12 and requested an extension of time to identify John Does 6-10. In
subsequent letters to the Pro Se Clerk, dated November 28, 2014, and to Judge Geraci, dated
December 5, 2014, counsel for defendants identified John Does 6-10.
Judge Siragusa issued a Decision and Order dated December 5, 2014, which
discussed counsel’s November 28 letter, but not her December 5 letter, and directed the Clerk of
the Court to amend the caption to reflect the names of John Does 6-10 and to issue summonses
and to ensure service by the United States Marshal upon them. (Docket # 9). As to the
remaining John Does, he directed counsel for defendants to review Lashway’s motion “to see if
the additional information provided by plaintiff allows [counsel] to identify the full names and
addresses of the additional John Doe defendants” and “to produce the above requested
information by December 19, 2014.” (Id.). The docket shows that counsel for defendants
responded to the court’s directive on December 19, 2014.
Judge Siragusa’s December 5, 2014 decision also denied without prejudice
Lashway’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Id.). Earlier this year, I granted a subsequent
motion filed by Lashway for appointment of counsel. (Docket ## 40, 46). Of course, counsel is
free to explore the identity of any remaining John Doe defendants through discovery.
On this record, Lashway’s motion seeking to compel the defendants to identify
the remaining John Doe defendants and for appointment of counsel (Docket # 7) is DENIED as
moot. So, too, is Lashway’s more recently filed motion for appointment of counsel and return of
“lawsuit papers.” (Docket # 41). The date of that motion suggests that Lashway prepared it
before he received this Court’s Order appointing counsel. Defendants’ response represents that
Lashway may review his papers “upon request.” (Docket # 43). If Lashway believes that
procedure to be inadequate, he should address it with counsel and file any appropriate motions
through counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
September 14, 2015
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?