Palm v. Brooks

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT oh Satie cscumavene □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | pocunenrs □ NICHOLAS M. PALM, : fe INSEE LEN □□□□□ | Plaintiff, : ne ge □□□□ □

: 22 CV 9729 (VB) SGT. JESSICA BROOKS, NBNY PD; TROOPER TYLLER K. CARROZZO; and TROOPER NATHANEAL SCHACK, Defendants. : ee 0 0 IK Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. On November 14, 2022, plaintiff filed the complaint. (Doc. #1). On December 19, 2022, the Court entered an order directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on the defendants and extending plaintiff’s time to serve under Rule 4(m) to 90 days after the date summonses were issued. (Doc. #8). The Clerk of Court issued summonses as to all defendants on December 19, 2022. (Doc. #9). On February 21, 2023, the Court received from plaintiff a letter dated February 15, 2023, inquiring as to the status of service. (Doc. #11).! There is no indication on the docket that defendants have been served, although the Court has been informed that the Marshals Service is in the process of effecting service. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) to serve the defendants is sua sponte extended to May 1, 2023. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)@) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposes of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962).

Plaintiff also requested paperwork for his anticipated application for pro bono counsel. This request was processed by the Court’s pro se intake unit on February 21, 2023.

Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. Dated: March 2, 2023 White Plains, NY SO dV Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge