Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 11/25/2014

Ceara v. Deacon

Citations

  • 68 F. Supp. 3d 402
  • 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164877
  • 2014 WL 6674559

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that the plaintiff's claims did not relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) because the plaintiff was \ignorant\ and not \mistaken\ about the John Doe defendants' identities
  • concluding that the plaintiffs claims did not relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) because the plaintiff was “ignorant” and not “mistaken” about the John Doe defendants’ identities
  • stating that the Court may consider “materials outside the complaint to the extent that they are consistent with the allegations in the complaint” for pro se litigants
  • finding fair apprisal requirement met because “Plaintiff’s detailed description of the incident in the original Complaint provided sufficient information . . .”
  • finding due diligence where the plaintiff “contacted an official to provide information about [the d]efendant’s full identity” (citation omitted)
  • “[A] plaintiff may not designate a party as ‘John Doe’ under § 1024 if he has actual knowledge of the party’s identity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Karas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.