Syville v. City of New York

Nature of the order

This is an Order of Service. It addresses which filings make up the operative pleading and how the defendants should be served. It does not resolve the merits of Syville’s claims.

Background

Syville filed an amended complaint on June 15, 2020. The filing named two individual defendants identified by Project Renewal but did not include substantive allegations. Although the court had told Syville that an amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, his earlier pleadings, the court made an exception under the circumstances involving this self-represented plaintiff.

The court therefore treated Syville’s two January 21, 2020 complaints, his January 24, 2020 letter, and the January 15, 2020 amendment together as the operative pleading. That pleading was attached to the order as Exhibit A.

Rulings and instructions

Syville had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court explained that a plaintiff proceeding under that permission may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service.

The Clerk was instructed to prepare U.S. Marshals Service process forms for six defendants at the addresses listed in the order: New York City Housing Authority; Mayor Bill de Blasio; New York State Office of Alcoholism Substance Abuse Services; Sera Security; Etta Graham; and Judy Malloy. The Clerk was also instructed to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve those defendants.

Because Syville requested copies of case documents, Chambers was ordered to mail him the order and the attached operative pleading. The court stated that Syville must identify the specific documents if he needs additional copies.

Disposition

The court treated the identified filings as one operative pleading and issued service instructions. The order did not grant or deny relief on the underlying claims and did not make findings about whether those claims were legally valid.