Charles Bernard Starke, Jr. v. Officer Fuentes, et al.

S.D. New York

Charles Bernard Starke, Jr. v. Officer Fuentes, et al.

DecidedOctober 22, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-03108

StatusUnknown

This text of Charles Bernard Starke, Jr. v. Officer Fuentes, et al. (Charles Bernard Starke, Jr. v. Officer Fuentes, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Bernard Starke, Jr. v. Officer Fuentes, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X CHARLES BERNARD STARKE, JR., ORDER OF SERVICE Plaintiff, v. 25-CV-03108 (PMH)

OFFICER FUENTES, et al.,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------X

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Rockland County Jail, brings this action, pro se, alleging that various municipal/police entities and alleged associated individuals violated his rights under various state and federal laws. By order dated April 24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 The Court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on the Defendants, but on September 12 and 19, 2025, the Court received Marshal’s Process Receipt and Return of Service forms, indicating that service on Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga, respectively, was unexecuted. (Docs. 39, 40). On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter purporting to advise the Court that Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga are “employed at the Rockland County Courthouse.” (Doc. 44). Subsequently, and upon direction from the Court to respond to Plaintiff’s letter (Doc. 46), counsel for Rockland County confirmed that Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga were not employed by Rockland County, as “[u]pon information and belief, they are New York State court officers who may be stationed at the Rockland County courthouse” (Doc. 47).

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 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 (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)).

Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that the summons and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. If the complaint is not served within that time, 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); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals’ failure

to effect service automatically constitutes ‘good cause’ for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule 4(m).”). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a new U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for these defendants with the following address: Rockland County Supreme and County Court, 1 South Main Street, New City, New York 10956. 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 these defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete a new USM-285 form with the address for Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service.

SO ORDERED: Dated: New York, New York October 22, 2025 (Sau/ Philip M. Halpern United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Officer Fuentes Rockland County Supreme and County Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956

Kelvin Zuniga Rockland County Supreme and County Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X CHARLES BERNARD STARKE, JR., ORDER OF SERVICE Plaintiff, v. 25-CV-03108 (PMH)

OFFICER FUENTES, et al.,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------X

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Rockland County Jail, brings this action, pro se, alleging that various municipal/police entities and alleged associated individuals violated his rights under various state and federal laws. By order dated April 24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 The Court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on the Defendants, but on September 12 and 19, 2025, the Court received Marshal’s Process Receipt and Return of Service forms, indicating that service on Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga, respectively, was unexecuted. (Docs. 39, 40). On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter purporting to advise the Court that Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga are “employed at the Rockland County Courthouse.” (Doc. 44). Subsequently, and upon direction from the Court to respond to Plaintiff’s letter (Doc. 46), counsel for Rockland County confirmed that Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga were not employed by Rockland County, as “[u]pon information and belief, they are New York State court officers who may be stationed at the Rockland County courthouse” (Doc. 47).

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 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 (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)).

Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that the summons and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. If the complaint is not served within that time, 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); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals’ failure

to effect service automatically constitutes ‘good cause’ for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule 4(m).”). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a new U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for these defendants with the following address: Rockland County Supreme and County Court, 1 South Main Street, New City, New York 10956. 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 these defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete a new USM-285 form with the address for Defendants Fuentes and Zuniga and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service.

SO ORDERED: Dated: New York, New York October 22, 2025 (Sau/ Philip M. Halpern United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Officer Fuentes Rockland County Supreme and County Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956

Kelvin Zuniga Rockland County Supreme and County Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Charles Bernard Starke, Jr. v. Officer Fuentes, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-bernard-starke-jr-v-officer-fuentes-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack