Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 23, 2024

Flores v. The State of New York

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-02969
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Flores v. New York, Judge Abrams granted more time to serve Montigny and ordered address and identity information for Montigny and Doe.

Who this affects

John Andrew Flores, Defendant Montigny, John Doe, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and the United States Marshals Service.

What happened

John Andrew Flores asked the court to extend his deadline to serve Defendant Montigny, obtain service addresses for Montigny and John Doe, and identify John Doe.

The court explained that the Marshals Service could not serve Montigny because he was not on an approved list, did not work at the listed building, and was on leave. Because Flores had provided enough information to identify Montigny, the court found good cause for the failed service attempt. The court also stated that a self-represented prisoner who cannot pay court fees is not required to provide a defendant’s current address when the defendant can reasonably be identified.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Flores’s request to extend the service deadline for Montigny. The deadline was extended for 90 days after the New York State Attorney General provides a service address. The court also directed the Attorney General’s Office to provide Montigny’s service address and to file information identifying John Doe, including his badge number and a service address, by September 6, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Flores v. The State of New York · No. 1:24-cv-02969
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 23, 2024

Background

John Andrew Flores, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court filing fees, asked the court for three forms of relief related to serving the defendants with the lawsuit: (1) an extension of the deadline to serve Defendant Montigny, (2) an order requiring service addresses for Montigny and John Doe, and (3) identification of John Doe.

The court had previously directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and provide the United States Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve Montigny. The summons was issued on May 9, 2024. On August 6, 2024, the Marshals Service reported that it could not complete service because Montigny was not on an approved list, did not work at the listed building, and was listed as on leave and not at a facility.

The court also had previously ordered the New York State Attorney General to determine John Doe’s identity and provide Flores with Doe’s badge number and a service address.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Flores’s request to extend the deadline for serving Montigny. The court found good cause because Flores had provided the information needed to identify Montigny, even though the Marshals Service could not locate him at the address Flores supplied. The court explained that a self-represented prisoner proceeding without paying court fees generally is not required to provide a defendant’s accurate current address when the defendant’s identity is reasonably identifiable.

The court directed the New York State Attorney General to provide, no later than September 6, 2024, the address where Montigny could be served. Flores’s deadline to serve Montigny was extended for 90 days from the date the Attorney General provides that address.

The court further directed the Attorney General’s Office to file a letter by September 6, 2024, providing the identity, badge number, and service address of John Doe. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Flores and to the New York State Attorney General’s Managing Attorney’s Office.

Effect of the Order

This order concerns service of process—the formal delivery of the lawsuit and related papers to defendants. It does not decide the underlying claims against New York, Montigny, or John Doe.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.