Robertson v. Fluerinord

S.D. New York

Robertson v. Fluerinord

DecidedJanuary 9, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-04977

StatusUnknown

This text of Robertson v. Fluerinord (Robertson v. Fluerinord) 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

Robertson v. Fluerinord, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DALE ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, 23-CV-4977 (JGK) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE JACQUELINE FLUERINORD; ET AL., Defendants. JOHN G. KOELTL, United States District Judge: The plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated June 14, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. On January 5, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a new defendant.' (ECF 24.) Because the 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)). To allow the plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Officer John Theos 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 this defendant. The Clerk of Court is further

! The plaintiff named a new defendant after learning that individual’s identify in a government response to an order issued under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant). (ECF 14.)

instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Officer Theos. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summonses are issued, the 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). The plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if the plaintiff fails to do so. Dated: Einar iy ew York, New Yor he 2 1? [24 ht Oleh United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

Officer John Theos Shield No. 9411 84th Precinct Warrant Section 300 Gold Street Brooklyn, New York 11201

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 DALE ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, 23-CV-4977 (JGK) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE JACQUELINE FLUERINORD; ET AL., Defendants. JOHN G. KOELTL, United States District Judge: The plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated June 14, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. On January 5, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a new defendant.' (ECF 24.) Because the 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)). To allow the plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Officer John Theos 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 this defendant. The Clerk of Court is further

! The plaintiff named a new defendant after learning that individual’s identify in a government response to an order issued under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant). (ECF 14.)

instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Officer Theos. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summonses are issued, the 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). The plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if the plaintiff fails to do so. Dated: Einar iy ew York, New Yor he 2 1? [24 ht Oleh United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

Officer John Theos Shield No. 9411 84th Precinct Warrant Section 300 Gold Street Brooklyn, New York 11201

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robertson v. Fluerinord, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-fluerinord-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack