Shepherd v. Linley
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-06912
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shepherd v. Linley, Judge Seibel ordered U.S. Marshals service after allowing James T. Shepherd to proceed without prepaying fees.
James T. Shepherd, the four named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Shepherd v. Linley, James T. Shepherd, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Dr. Linley, Nurse Stewart, Nurse Kobondek, and Officer Witkawski for damages and an order requiring action. The court had already allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Because Shepherd was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court said the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service would assist with serving the defendants. The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the paperwork needed for service.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to prepare the service forms, deliver the documents to the Marshals Service, and mail Shepherd an information package. The order said service should occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued and that Shepherd should ask for more time if service is not completed.
The detailed version
- Shepherd v. Linley · No. 7:24-cv-06912
- Cathy Seibel
- Oct. 2, 2024
Background
James T. Shepherd brought this action against Dr. Linley, Nurse Stewart, Nurse Kobondek, and Officer Witkawski. The opinion says Shepherd is currently incarcerated at FCI Otisville and is proceeding without a lawyer. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, meaning an order requiring a defendant to take or stop taking certain action.
The court had previously granted Shepherd permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion explains that people proceeding under that permission are entitled to assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving defendants. It also notes that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee through the statutory payment process.
Order concerning service
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue a summons for each defendant, and give the Marshals Service all paperwork needed to complete service. The order included service addresses for each defendant at FCI Otisville.
The court extended the service period so that the 90-day period begins on the date the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within those 90 days, Shepherd should request an extension of time. The court also instructed Shepherd to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
Judge Cathy Seibel entered an amended order of service. The order addressed service arrangements and did not decide the underlying claims for damages or injunctive relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.