Clark v. Hutchison
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-03271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Clark v. Hutchison, Magistrate Judge Reznik ordered marshals to serve eleven newly added defendants in Clark’s civil-rights case.
Cleon Clark and the eleven defendants added in his amended complaint, including the listed Mount Vernon Police Department personnel and other named defendants. The Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take steps to serve those defendants.
What happened
In Clark v. Hutchison, Cleon Clark, who is representing himself and incarcerated, alleges that Mount Vernon police officers used excessive force and falsely arrested him in May 2022. He brings the case under a federal civil-rights law and seeks damages.
Clark amended his complaint to add eleven defendants. Because he had permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants.
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms, and send the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Clark’s allegations are true or whether he will win the case.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Hutchison · No. 7:23-cv-03271
- Nelson Roman
- June 21, 2024
Background
Cleon Clark, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages. He alleges that Mount Vernon police officers used excessive force and falsely arrested him in May 2022. His original complaint named Officer Hutchison, Officer Martinez, and “Mount Vernon Police (All).” The court replaced “Mount Vernon Police (All)” with the City of Mount Vernon.
The court had previously granted Clark permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. After a status conference, Clark received additional time to amend his complaint. On June 18, 2024, he filed an amended complaint adding eleven defendants: Mount Vernon Police Officers Joseph C. Saetta, Nicholas Kikis, Derek A. Williams, Charles A. Rizzo, David M. Culbert, and Stefano R. Silvestri; Sgt. Elio T. Rucci; Michael Timpone; Lytel Martin; Jonathan Gibson-Price; and Gregory Addison.
Order
Because Clark was authorized to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. Service of process is the formal delivery of the summons and complaint to defendants to notify them of the lawsuit.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each newly added defendant, issue a summons for each, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The court also stated that service generally must be completed within 90 days after the summons is issued and that Clark must request an extension if necessary. It further stated that Clark must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition and Significance
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete the service forms, and deliver the required documents to the Marshals Service for all eleven newly added defendants. The order concerns service only; it does not resolve Clark’s excessive-force or false-arrest allegations and does not decide the merits of his claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.