Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 8, 2024

Newman v. Park

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:24-cv-06829
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Newman v. Park, Magistrate Judge Willis added New York City as a defendant and ordered information about service and representation.

Who this affects

Maurice Newman, Molly Park, Kirsis Ham, and the City of New York; the order also directs the New York City Law Department to provide information about service and representation.

What happened

Newman v. Park concerns Maurice Newman’s claim that officials denied him due process when he applied for benefits from New York City’s Human Resources Administration. Newman is representing himself and sued under a federal civil-rights law.

The court added the City of New York as a defendant, even though Newman had not named the City in his complaint. It ordered the City’s Law Department to report within ten days whether Molly Park and Kirsis Ham would accept service of the lawsuit and whether the Law Department would represent Ham.

The court postponed deciding Park and the City’s request for more time to respond until after that report. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis.

The detailed version

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

Case
Newman v. Park · No. 1:24-cv-06829
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Oct. 8, 2024

Background

Maurice Newman, who is representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Molly Park and Kirsis Ham denied him due process when he applied for benefits from the New York City Human Resources Administration. The opinion identifies Park as the HRA Commissioner and Ham as a WeCARE doctor and supervisor who assessed Newman’s medical condition.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had previously allowed Newman to proceed without paying court fees in advance. Because of that ruling, the Clerk’s Office and U.S. Marshals were responsible for serving the summonses, but the Clerk’s Office had not yet issued them.

Order

The New York City Law Department filed a letter-motion on behalf of Park and the City of New York seeking additional time to respond to the complaint. The opinion notes that Newman had not named the City as a defendant.

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court added the City of New York as a defendant. The court also ordered the Law Department to inform it within ten days whether Park intended to waive service of summons, whether the Law Department would file a notice of appearance for Ham, and, if so, whether Ham intended to waive service.

Disposition

The court did not yet decide Park and the City’s request for an extension of time to respond. It stated that it would address that request after receiving the Law Department’s response to the order. United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.