Zappin v. Cooper

S.D. New York

Zappin v. Cooper

DecidedApril 8, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-02669

StatusUnknown

This text of Zappin v. Cooper (Zappin v. Cooper) 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

Zappin v. Cooper, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANTHONY ZAPPIN, Plaintiff, 20-CV-2669 (ER) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE MATTHEW F. COOPER, et al., Defendants. EDGARDO RAMOS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Defendants abused process by arresting him in retaliation for the exercising of his right to free speech. By order dated April 7, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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)). But, in light of the difficulties with service of process caused by the outbreak of COVID-19 (coronavirus), the Court directs the Clerk of Court to issue electronic summonses to Plaintiff as to Defendants Matthew F. Cooper, Lauren Liebhauser, Kevin M. Doyle, and Hannah Yu. Plaintiff is directed to serve the summonses and complaint on each Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of the summonses. If Plaintiff is unable to serve Defendants, he must write to the Court, and if necessary, the Court will direct service by the U.S. Marshals Service. If within 90 days, Plaintiff has not served Defendants, requested an extension of time to do so, or informed the Court that he is unable to serve Defendants, the Court may dismiss the claims against Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to issue electronic summonses to Plaintiff as to Defendants Matthew F. Cooper, Lauren Liebhauser, Kevin M. Doyle, and Hannah Yu. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 7, 2020 ; 2 ie New York, New York EO EDGARDORAMOS” is United States District Judge

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 ANTHONY ZAPPIN, Plaintiff, 20-CV-2669 (ER) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE MATTHEW F. COOPER, et al., Defendants. EDGARDO RAMOS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Defendants abused process by arresting him in retaliation for the exercising of his right to free speech. By order dated April 7, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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)). But, in light of the difficulties with service of process caused by the outbreak of COVID-19 (coronavirus), the Court directs the Clerk of Court to issue electronic summonses to Plaintiff as to Defendants Matthew F. Cooper, Lauren Liebhauser, Kevin M. Doyle, and Hannah Yu. Plaintiff is directed to serve the summonses and complaint on each Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of the summonses. If Plaintiff is unable to serve Defendants, he must write to the Court, and if necessary, the Court will direct service by the U.S. Marshals Service. If within 90 days, Plaintiff has not served Defendants, requested an extension of time to do so, or informed the Court that he is unable to serve Defendants, the Court may dismiss the claims against Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to issue electronic summonses to Plaintiff as to Defendants Matthew F. Cooper, Lauren Liebhauser, Kevin M. Doyle, and Hannah Yu. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 7, 2020 ; 2 ie New York, New York EO EDGARDORAMOS” is United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zappin v. Cooper, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zappin-v-cooper-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack