Yosef Rothstein

7.

 

Upon information and belief, the Court has personal jurisdiction of the defendants 

because (a) they are residents of the state; (b) committed tortious acts within the state, or (c) 

committed tortious acts without the state causing injury within the state and regularly do business 

in the state. 

PARTIES 

Plaintiff 

8.

 

Navdeep, an Amritdhari Sikh, is presently confined to the Fishkill Correctional 

Facility.  He was convicted of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in 

the fourth degree.  He entered the custody of the New York City Department of Correction on 

January 26, 2005, to serve a five-year sentence. 

Defendants 

9.

 

Defendant Glenn S. Goord is Commissioner of DOCS and is responsible for all 

aspects of prison operations, including accommodation of prisoners’ religious exercise.  He is 

sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief. 

10.

 

Defendant William Mazzuca was the Superintendent of Fishkill.  He is sued in his 

official capacity and individually for damages.  Mazzuca is directly responsible for the 

restrictions that Fishkill imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

11.

 

Upon information and belief, defendant Larry Zwillinger is the acting 

Superintendent of Fishkill.  He is sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief. 

12.

 

Defendant Paul Annetts is the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility 

(“Downstate”).  He is sued in his official capacity and individually for damages.  Annetts is 

directly responsible for the restrictions that Downstate imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

13.

 

Defendant Lieutenant Wohlrab is a Hearing Officer at Downstate who presided at 

the disciplinary hearings for the misbehavior report with an incident date of February 14, 2005 

 4  

---

and March 16, 2005.  He is sued in his official capacity and individually for damages.  Wohlrab 

is directly responsible for the restrictions imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

14.

 

Defendant Commia is a Correctional Officer at Downstate.  He is sued in his 

official capacity and individually for damages.  Commia is directly responsible for restrictions 

imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices.  

15.

 

Defendant Lynch is a Correctional Officer at Fishkill.  He is sued in his official 

capacity and individually for damages.  Lynch is directly responsible for restrictions imposed on 

Navdeep’s religious practices. 

16.

 

Defendant Larkin is a Deputy at Fishkill.  He us sued in his official capacity and 

individually for damages.  Larkin is directly responsible for restrictions imposed on Navdeep’s 

religious practices.  

17.

 

Defendant Mendoza is a Correctional Officer at Fishkill.  He is sued in his official 

capacity and individually for damages.  Mendoza is directly responsible for restrictions imposed 

on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

18.

 

Defendant DiGirolamo is a Correctional Officer at Fishkill.  He is sued in his 

official capacity and individually for damages.  DiGirolamo is directly responsible for 

restrictions imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

19.

 

Defendant Monzillo is a Correctional Officer at Fishkill.  He is sued in his official 

capacity and individually for damages.  Monzillo is directly responsible for restrictions imposed 

on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

20.

 

Defendant Stewart is a Correctional Officer at Fishkill.  He is sued in his official 

capacity and individually for damages.  Stewart is directly responsible for restrictions imposed 

on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

 5  

---

21.

 

Defendant Tabor is a Correctional Officer at Fishkill.  He is sued in his official 

capacity and individually for damages.  Tabor is directly responsible for restrictions imposed on 

Navdeep’s religious practices. 

22.

 

Defendant K. Emminger is a Correctional Officer at Fishkill.  He is sued in his 

official capacity and individually for damages.  Emminger is directly responsible for restrictions 

imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices. 

23.

 

Defendant Michelle Stone is the head of the Inmate Grievance Program at 

Fishkill.  She is sued in her official capacity.   

24.

 

Upon information and belief, John Doe #1 is a Sergeant at Downstate who signed 

the misbehavior report with an incident date of February 14, 2005.  John Doe #1 is sued in 

his/her official capacity and individually for damages; John Doe #1 is directly responsible for 

restrictions imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices.   

25.

 

Upon information and belief, John Doe #2 is a Correctional Officer at Ulster 

Correctional Facility (“Ulster”).  John Doe #2 is sued in his/her official capacity and individually 

for damages; John Doe #2 is directly responsible for restrictions imposed on Navdeep’s religious 

practices.  

26.

 

Upon information and belief, John Doe #3 is a hearing officer at Fishkill.  John 

Doe #3 is sued in his/her official capacity and individually for damages; John Doe #3 is directly 

responsible for restrictions imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices.  

27.

 

Upon information and belief, John Doe #4 is a hearing officer at Fishkill.  John 

Doe #4 is sued in his/her official capacity and individually for damages; John Doe #4 is directly 

responsible for restrictions imposed on Navdeep’s religious practices.  

 6  

---