UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : ANJELU SAJETTA, : : Plaintiff, : 25-CV-02574 (JAV) : -v- : ORDER : CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., : : Defendants. : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge: On September 5, 2025, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to update his mailing address or risk dismissal of this case. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff has responded by letter dated September 13, 2025, attaching a letter he previously submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit in June 2025 updating his address. A review of Court records indicates that this letter was received by the Pro Se Intake Unit on June 27, 2025, and filed on the docket on June 30, 2025. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff’s address had not been updated on the ECF system despite the timely submission of his change of address notification, however. That error has now been rectified, and the docket now reflects Plaintiff’s current mailing address. Plaintiff has also filed letters objecting to the response of the City of New York (the “City”) to the Court’s Order of Service. ECF Nos. 23, 24. In its responsive letter, the City of New York identified the employee who serves as the mailroom officer at West Facility. ECF No. 17. The City of New York indicated that, while other employees may have been served in that role when the mailroom officer was absent, those individuals cannot easily be identified as they would have to review paper logs that have since been archived. Id. In response, Plaintiff argues that the City should be required to identify all individuals who worked in the West Faciltiy mailroom from January 2024 through the present time as there were “multiple incidents by which Petitioner wishes to hold Defendants accountable for.” ECF No. 24. To the extent that there were additional incidents at West Facility, Plaintiff has not indicated that those incidents involved anyone other than the individual who is assigned as the mailroom officer. He has also not provided the dates of such incidents, the nature of such incidents, or a description of the individuals allegedly involved in such incidents. Without such additional information, the Court will not require the City to identify each individual who worked in the West Facility mailroom for a twenty-one month period. Lurch v. Doe Officers, No. 22-CV-2324 (VSB),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2022) (“Courts routinely decline to issue ‘Valentin Orders’ where a plaintiff does not provide enough information to identify an unidentified defendant or where it does not appear that a plaintiff has stated a claim.”). The Court had required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants within 30 days of receiving the City’s letter identifying the West Facility mailroom employees. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff indicated that he has not yet done so because of his objections to the City’s response to the Valentin order. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff also requests that Defendants be required to produce discovery. /d. Discovery is not yet appropriate at the present time, as the Amended Complaint naming the proper defendants has not yet been filed. The Court shall grant Plaintiff an extension of time, until November 3, 2025, to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court’s instructions in its June 12 Order of Service. SO ORDERED. - Dated: September 23, 2025 LUMLIAL ‘ey New York, New York * JEANNETTE A. VARGAS i United States District Judge