UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GILBERT VARTECON CARRION, Plaintiff, No. 22-CV-9445 (KMK) v. OPINION & ORDER TASHA M. JOHNSON, et al. Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was incarcerated in Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”), Defendants violated his rights. By order dated November 7, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. On February 28, 2023, the Court issued an Order which (1) granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint to provide facts to determine whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief against Defendants Kopp, Griffen, Doulan, Lingenious, Miller, and Martin; (2) directed the U.S. Marshall’s Service to effect service on Defendants Ricardo and Johnson. (See Dkt. No. 15.) On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (“AC”). (See Am. Compl. (“AC”) (Dkt. No. 18).) On August 24, 2023, the U.S. Marshals Service indicated that it had been unable to serve Defendants Ricardo and Johnson. (See Dkt. Nos. 21, 22.) Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the Court in ascertaining a defendant’s proper service address. See 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In his complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the New York Attorney General to provide the service addresses of the unserved Defendants. It is therefore ordered that the Attorney General of the State of New York provide the appropriate service address for Lindsay Lingenious, Sgt. Tasha M. Johnson, C.O. Ricardo Varmor, Ms. S. Martin, Marilyn Kopp, Mangan P. Doulan, Courtney Griffin, and Supt. Mark J. Miller. The Attorney General must provide this information to the Court and to Plaintiff within 60 days of the date of this order. Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming providing the Defendants’ service address. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen it and issue an order directing service on Defendants. Conclusion The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order and a copy of the complaint to the Attorney General of the State of New York, at 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2025 White Plains, New York ee gn ay seen KENNETH M. KARAS United States District Judge