Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital; Allied Universal Security; Anthony Anderson; John Doe Security Officers 1-4

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 3, 2025
Docket7:25-cv-06463
StatusUnknown

This text of Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital; Allied Universal Security; Anthony Anderson; John Doe Security Officers 1-4 (Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital; Allied Universal Security; Anthony Anderson; John Doe Security Officers 1-4) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital; Allied Universal Security; Anthony Anderson; John Doe Security Officers 1-4, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JARON BURNETT, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-6463 (CS) WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL; ALLIED ORDER OF SERVICE UNIVERSAL SECURITY; ANTHONY ANDERSON; JOHN DOE SECURITY OFFICERS 1-4, Defendants. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action asserting claims for denial of his rights under federal and state law. His claims arose out of his visit on June 22, 2024, to White Plains Hospital. By order dated September 2, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. DISCUSSION A. Service on Named Defendants Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to assistance from the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.1 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP)).

1Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date any summonses issue. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants White Plains Hospital, Allied Universal Security, and Anthony Anderson through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and

deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendants. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date summonses are issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. B. John Doe Security Guards 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). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit Allied Universal Security to identify its four John Doe security

guards who were stationed at White Plains Hospital on June 22, 2024, and present during Plaintiff’s arrest. It is therefore ordered that Allied Universal Security ascertain the identity of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served. Allied Universal Security must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendant(s). The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form for Plaintiff to complete after receiving this information is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named John Doe Defendants and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for Defendants White Plains Hospital, Allied Universal, and Anthony Anderson, complete the USM-285 form with the address for each Defendant, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to Allied Universal at: 12 Water Street, Suite 301, White Plains, NY 10601. An “Amended Complaint” form is attached to this order. Dated: September 3, 2025 . White Plains, New York tthe fakh United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT

White Plains Hospital 41 E Post Rd. White Plains, NY 10601 Allied Universal Security 12 Water Street, Suite 301 White Plains, NY 10601 Anthony Anderson c/o Allied Universal Security 12 Water Street, Suite 301 White Plains, NY 10601 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CV TT (clu ber if has b Write the full name of each plaintiff. ened) nummer troneines seen

-against- AMENDED

COMPLAINT □□ Do you want a jury trial? [(1Yes (CINo

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section Il.

NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

Rev. 2/10/17

I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation, and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, is a diversity case. In a diversity case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff. What is the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in your case? [] Federal Question L] Diversity of Citizenship A. If you checked Federal Question Which of your federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated?

B. If you checked Diversity of Citizenship 1. Citizenship of the parties Of what State is each party a citizen? The plaintiff , ,is a citizen of the State of (Plaintiffs name)

(State in which the person resides and intends to remain.) or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or subject of the foreign state of

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital; Allied Universal Security; Anthony Anderson; John Doe Security Officers 1-4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaron-burnett-v-white-plains-hospital-allied-universal-security-anthony-nysd-2025.