Browne v. PO Q. Ryer

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 17, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-08559·Unknown

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 10/17/2023 KENDALL BROWNE, Plaintiff, 23-CV-8559 (NSR) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE PO RYER Q. SHIELD #1478, Defendant. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant violated his constitutional rights during a traffic stop. By order dated October 12, 2023, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. DISCUSSION A. Amend Caption Plaintiff names as the Defendant “Officer Ryer Q.” The attachments to the complaint, however, show that the Defendant’s name is “Q. Ryer.” Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace Defendant “PO Ryer Q. Shield #1478” with “PO Q. Ryer Shield #1478.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. B. Order of Service Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.! Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6

' Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and the complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that the summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons 1s issued.

(2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Officer Ryer through the U.S. Marshals

Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for this Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendant. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so.

C. New York Legal Assistance Group Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (“NYLAG”) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption of this action to replace Defendant “PO Ryer Q. Shield #1478” with Defendant “PO Q. Ryer Shield #1478.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Clerk of Court also is directed to issue a summons for Officer Q. Ryer, Shield #1478, complete the USM-285 forms with the address for this defendant, deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service, and mail Plaintiff a copy of this Order and an information package, which includes a consent to electronic service, that Plaintiff may complete to receive notices of all electronic filings. A copy of NYLAG’s flyer with details of its clinic is attached to this order. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 17, 2023 White Plains, New York NELSONS.ROMAN- United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

Officer Q. Ryer, Shield #1478 City of Middletown Police Department 2 James Street Middletown, NY 10940 SD lee Pe ew Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services New York ME Legal Assistance Group to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys.

Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Civil Litigants in District Court for the Southern District Of New Yor|

NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York is a fre clinic staffed by attorneys, law students and paralegals to assist those who are themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits in the outhern District of New York. The clinic does not provide full representation. The clinic, is not part of or run by the court, assists litigants with federal civil cases including involving civil rights, employment discrimination, labor law, social security benefit: and tax.

Contact the Clinic: (212) 659-6190 or complete our online intake form (found here: A staff member will contact you within a few days.

looking for assistance can also contact the clinic at the kiosk located across the hall the pro se clinic office in the courthouse.

this time, the clinic offers remote consultations only. Requests for in- appointments will be reviewed on a case-to-case basis. and Hours: Marshall United States Courthouse

Room LL22 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 (212) 659 6190 Open weekdays 10 a.m. — 4 p.m. Closed on federal and court holidays

ii □□□□ □

= = eee 14 ESE ° . New York ME Legal Assistance Group District of New York

The NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York provides free limited legal assistance to individuals who are representing themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits in federal court in Manhattan and White Plains. The clinic is staffed by attorneys, law students, and paralegals. Information given to clinic staff is confidential.

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

Browne v. PO Q. Ryer, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Browne v. PO Q. Ryer (Browne v. PO Q. Ryer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)