Hill v. Officer Schlewit

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 26, 2025·No. 7:25-cv-03530·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOESPH HILL, Plaintiff, 25-CV-3530 (KMK) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE OFFICER SCHLEWIT, Defendant. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Westchester County Jail and proceeds pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts claims arising from the use of excessive force against him on April 25, 2025. By order dated May 16, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 DISCUSSION A. Service on Defendants 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.2 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)).

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 2 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 affect service until the Court reviewed the Complaint and ordered that summonses issue. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date summonses issue. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Westchester County Correction Officer Schlewit 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 Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these Defendant.

If the Complaint is not served within 90 days after the date summonses are 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. B. Automatic Discovery Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires defendants in certain types of prisoner cases to respond to specific, court-ordered discovery requests, applies to this action. Those discovery requests are available on the Court’s website under “Forms” and are titled “Plaintiff’s Local Civil

Rule 33.2 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.” Within 120 days of service of the complaint, Defendant must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendant must quote each request verbatim.3

3 If Plaintiff would like copies of these discovery requests before receiving the responses and does not have access to the website, Plaintiff may request them from the Pro Se Intake Unit. CONCLUSION The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Defendant, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Defendant, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. The Court notifies the parties that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this action. 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 in forma pauperis 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: June 26, 2025 sgh White Plains, New York { KENNETH M.KARAS United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

Officer Schlewit, Shield #1966 Westchester County Jail 10 Woods Road Valhalla, NY 10595

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

Hill v. Officer Schlewit, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Hill v. Officer Schlewit (Hill v. Officer Schlewit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)