Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York

S.D. New York

Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 30, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-05249·Unknown

Opinion

LSD SUT DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ase DATE FILED: 6/30/2023 ROBERT DEREK LURCH, —————————

Plaintiff, y- 23 Civ. 5249 (JHR) CITY OF NEW YORK; P.O. GRIFFEN; P.O. ORDER OF SERVICE ISLAM, Shield No. 13050; and P.O. TUDOR, Defendants.

JENNIFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By Order dated June 21, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. ECF No. 3. A. 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 (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 that service be made by the Marshals Service if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant City of New York through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process

' 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 a summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued.

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 a copy of this Order and all other 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. B. Valentin Order Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the Complaint, Plaintiff provides only partial names of the three police officers named as Defendants and does not provide service addresses for these individuals. See ECF No. 1. Nonetheless, the Complaint provides sufficient information to permit the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) to fully identify these

Defendants, who allegedly arrested Plaintiff in Times Square between June 16, 2023 and June 19, 2023. Accordingly, the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of NYPD, shall ascertain the identity and badge number of each police officer whom Plaintiff seeks to sue and the address where each one may be served.2 The New York City Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this Order.

2 If any Doe Defendant is not a current NYPD employee, the New York City Law Department must provide a residential address where that individual may be served. 2 C. Referral to NYLAG 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 ts 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: (1) issue a summons, complete the USM-285 form with the address for the City of New York, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service; (2) mail a copy of this Order and the Complaint to the New York City Law Department at 100 Church Street, New York, N.Y. 10007; and (3) mail a copy of this Order and an information package to Plaintiff. 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 1s 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 30, 2023 New York, New York oes Roar den, re ER H. REARDEN nited States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

City of New York 100 Church Street New York, N.Y. 10007

4 = = a 14 SEE ° . New York Ml 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