Jeremiah F. Herbert v. Sgt. Romeo Riley, Sgt. Jayson George, Sgt. Alicia Johnson, Correction Officer Sakaya Cameron, and Correction Officer Ashton Jones

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 7:25-cv-04578
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X JEREMIAH F. HERBERT, ORDER OF SERVICE Plaintiff, v. 25-CV-04578 (PMH)

SGT. ROMEO RILEY, SGT. JAYSON GEORGE, SGT. ALICIA JOHNSON, CORRECTION OFFICER SAKAYA CAMERON, AND CORRECTION OFFICER ASHTON JONES

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

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated June 30, 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 August 8, 2025, the Court received a Marshal’s Process Receipt and Return of Service form, indicating that service on Defendant B. Jones was unexecuted. (Doc. 10). The form also indicated that the service package was returned to sender with a new address label for Upstate Correctional Facility in Malone, New York. (Id.). On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter, which the Court construed as requesting that the Complaint be amended to substitute Defendant B. Jones with “officer Ashton Jones,” as B. Jones was allegedly improperly named. (Doc. 20). Upon confirmation from the OAG that an individual identified as Correction Officer Ashton Jones is currently assigned to Sing Sing Correctional Facility (Doc. 23), the Court deemed the Complaint

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). amended to substitute B. Jones with Correction Officer Ashton Jones, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate B. Jones as a defendant. (Doc. 24). 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 Defendant Correction Officer Ashton Jones 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 this defendant with the following address: Sing Sing Correctional Facility, 354 Hunter Street, Ossining, New York 10562-5442. 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 this defendant. If the Marshals Service is unable to serve Defendant Correction Officer Ashton Jones at this address the Court will issue an order, pursuant to Valentin y. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), directing the New York State Attorney General to identify a residential address where this defendant can be served. 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 Defendant Correctional Officer Ashton Jones and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service.

SO ORDERED: Dated: New York, New York 4 : 3 October 27, 2025 Philip M. Halpern United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Correction Officer Ashton Jones Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, New York 10562-5442