Mercer v. Sally
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-02803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Mercer v. Sally, Judge Clarke ordered U.S. Marshals service of the complaint but did not decide the merits of Mercer’s claims.
Ira Mercer, the four defendants identified for service, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Mercer v. Sally, Ira Mercer, representing himself, sued over his arrest and detention, alleging that they were based on an invalid arrest warrant. The court understood the complaint to raise federal claims under Sections 1983 and 1985, along with state-law claims.
Because Mercer had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare service forms for Detective Christopher Sally, Police Officer Sutton, District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, and Court Attorney Referee Susan Schieifer Levy. The U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve those defendants.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also directed the Clerk to mail Mercer an information package and told Mercer to notify the court in writing if his address changes. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide whether Mercer’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. Sally · No. 1:24-cv-02803
- Clarke
- June 27, 2024
Background
Ira Mercer, who is proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action concerning his arrest and detention based on what he alleges was an invalid arrest warrant. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as state-law claims. The court had previously granted Mercer permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of process
Because Mercer was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was instructed to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each of these defendants: Detective Christopher Sally, Police Officer Sutton, District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, and Court Attorney Referee Susan Schieifer Levy. The Clerk was also instructed to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to complete service.
The court stated that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Mercer should request an extension of time. The court also warned that Mercer must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the Clerk to issue the summonses, complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Mercer an information package. The order did not rule on the validity of the arrest warrant or the merits of Mercer’s federal or state-law claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.