Laforest v. Doe

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 29, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-03719·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JEAN PIERRE LAFOREST, Plaintiff,

— against — ORDER JOHN DOE, Security Guard, JOHN DOE NYPD 25-ev-03719 (ER) OFFICERS 1-4, FAMILY DOLLAR, West Farms Location, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

Ramos, D.J.: Mr. Laforest, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federally protected rights. By order dated June 16, 2025, the Court granted Mr. Laforest’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP’’), that is, without prepayment of fees. Doc. 7. DISCUSSION A. Service on Family Dollar Store On June 26, 2025, the Court ordered Mr. Laforest to provide to the Court, in writing, an address where the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) can serve the defendant Family Dollar Store in the West Farms neighborhood of the Bronx.' Doc. 9. On July 21, 2021, Mr. Laforest filed a notice of motion requesting that the Court subpoena, from the Legal Department of the Family Dollar Store, video surveillance footage from a Family Dollar Store located in East Tremont Ave, Bronx, NY, 10460. Doc. 11. In that notice of motion, Mr. Laforest identifies the following address for

' The Court construes the defendant which Mr. Laforest identifies as “Family Dollar (West Farms location)” in the complaint, and for which he provides an address to “Legal Department, Family Dollar Stores LLC” in his motion for a subpoena, to be the Family Dollar’s corporate parent, not the particular store in the Bronx.

service on Family Dollar: Legal Department, Family Dollar Stores LLC, 500 Volvo Parkway, Chesapeake, VA 23320. Doc. 11. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for Family Dollar and to deliver to the USMS all of the paperwork necessary for the USMS to effect service of the summons and complaint upon Family Dollar at 500 Volvo Parkway, Chesapeake, VA 23320. The Court extends the time to effect service of process by 90 days from the date of issuance of summons. B. Unidentified “John Doe”: Security Guard Defendant Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying an unidentified defendant and that defendant’s service address. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Mr. Laforest supplies sufficient information to permit Family Dollar to identify the unidentified “John Doe” security guard defendant; he or she is the security guard who allegedly assaulted him on June 13, 2024 at a Family Dollar store located in the West Farms neighborhood of the Bronx. It is therefore ordered that Family Dollar, which appears to be the employer of the unidentified “John Doe” security guard, must ascertain the identity of the security guard and an address where that individual may be served. Family Dollar is ordered to provide this information to Mr. Laforest and the Court within thirty days of receiving service of process. Within thirty days of receiving this information identifying John Doe’s identify and address, Mr. Laforest must file an amended complaint naming that individual defendant using the name provided and also providing his or her service address. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. Once Mr. Laforest has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing service on that newly identified defendant. C. Mr. Laforest’s Request for the Issuance of a Subpoena As previously discussed, on July 21, 2021, Mr. Laforest filed a notice of motion

requesting that the Court subpoena video surveillance footage from a particular Family Dollar Store. Doc. 11. While it would not be appropriate to serve a subpoena on Family Dollar—which 1s identified as a defendant in Mr. Laforest’s complaint—at this juncture, Mr. Laforest will be free to request the video surveillance footage from Family Dollar once it has been served with process and the parties engage in discovery, during which the parties to this case will exchange information. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for Family Dollar and to deliver to the USMS all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Family Dollar. The Court extends the time to effect service of process by 90 days from the date of issuance of summons. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order and Mr. Laforest’s complaint to Family Dollar, Attn: Legal Department, 500 Volvo Parkway, Chesapeake, VA 23320. Family Dollar is directed to identify the unidentified “John Doe” security guard and his or her service address—and to provide this information to Mr. Laforest and the Court—within thirty days of receiving service of process. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Mr. Laforest must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individual as a defendant. An amended complaint form that Mr. Laforest should complete is attached to this order. Mr. Laforest’s request for the issuance of a subpoena 1s denied, without prejudice to his seeking the same information during discovery. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the notice of motion, Doc. 11. Plaintiff may receive court documents by email by completing the form, Consent to Electronic Service.”

If Plaintiff consents to receive documents by email, Plaintiff will no longer receive court documents by regular mail.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Laforest.

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 29, 2025 oS ) New York, New York one \<——

EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.

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.

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

Laforest v. Doe, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Laforest v. Doe (Laforest v. Doe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related