Strachn v. NYPD

S.D. New York

Strachn v. NYPD

DecidedJuly 30, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-10212

StatusUnknown

This text of Strachn v. NYPD (Strachn v. NYPD) 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

Strachn v. NYPD, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAWAHN STRACHN, Plaintiff, -against- 19-CV-10212 (JPO) NYPD; NYPD OFFICER GOMEZ; REVISED ORDER OF SERVICE LIEUTENANT EDMONDS; FRIAS RAILYNG, Defendants. J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Kawahn Strachn brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated November 4, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. On November 14, 2019, this Court issued an Order of Service directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on Defendants City of New York, Officer Gomez, Officer Frias Railyng, and Lieutenant Edmonds. On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the unexecuted Marshal’s Process Receipt and Return of Service unexecuted as to Lieutenant Edmonds and Officer Gomez. Plaintiff has requested that the U.S. Marshal’s Service attempt to serve the un-served defendants at a new address. (See Dkt. No. 10.) The Clerk of Court is instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Defendants Officer Gomez and Lieutenant Edmonds, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to mail this Order

to pro se Plaintiff Kawahn Strachn. Plaintiff’s time to serve Defendants Gomez and Edmonds is extended to September 30, 2020. 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: July 30, 2020 New York, New York

United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Officer Gomez Attn: Legal Bureau – Civil 1 Police Plaza New York, NY 10038

Lieutenant Edmonds Attn: Legal Bureau – Civil 1 Police Plaza New York, NY 10038

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 KAWAHN STRACHN, Plaintiff, -against- 19-CV-10212 (JPO) NYPD; NYPD OFFICER GOMEZ; REVISED ORDER OF SERVICE LIEUTENANT EDMONDS; FRIAS RAILYNG, Defendants. J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Kawahn Strachn brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated November 4, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. On November 14, 2019, this Court issued an Order of Service directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on Defendants City of New York, Officer Gomez, Officer Frias Railyng, and Lieutenant Edmonds. On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the unexecuted Marshal’s Process Receipt and Return of Service unexecuted as to Lieutenant Edmonds and Officer Gomez. Plaintiff has requested that the U.S. Marshal’s Service attempt to serve the un-served defendants at a new address. (See Dkt. No. 10.) The Clerk of Court is instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Defendants Officer Gomez and Lieutenant Edmonds, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to mail this Order

to pro se Plaintiff Kawahn Strachn. Plaintiff’s time to serve Defendants Gomez and Edmonds is extended to September 30, 2020. 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: July 30, 2020 New York, New York

United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Officer Gomez Attn: Legal Bureau – Civil 1 Police Plaza New York, NY 10038

Lieutenant Edmonds Attn: Legal Bureau – Civil 1 Police Plaza New York, NY 10038

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Strachn v. NYPD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strachn-v-nypd-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack