Barnett v. State of New York
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-01174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Barnett v. State of New York, Judge Halpern extended service time, denied an immediate trial, and ordered new summonses.
LAFVORNE LEVI BARNETT, the Village of Ossining, Correction Officers A. Thomas, K. Edwards, and M. Banks, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order gives Barnett additional time to serve the three Individual Defendants and directs the Clerk and Marshals Service to assist with service.
What happened
In Barnett v. State of New York, LAFVORNE LEVI BARNETT sued under a federal civil-rights law over alleged constitutional violations while he was incarcerated. The Marshals Service could not serve Correction Officers A. Thomas, K. Edwards, and M. Banks within the original 90-day period.
The court treated Barnett’s October 21 letter as a request for more time and granted it, extending the service deadline to 90 days after the order. The court directed the Clerk to prepare new summonses and paperwork for the Marshals Service. It denied Barnett’s request to proceed immediately to trial, and the case will continue in the ordinary course.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also denied Barnett permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, after certifying that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Barnett’s underlying constitutional claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Barnett v. State of New York · No. 7:24-cv-01174
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
LAFVORNE LEVI BARNETT brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. He was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. His amended pleadings alleged constitutional violations while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
In an earlier order, the court dismissed Barnett’s claims against the State of New York under the Eleventh Amendment and replaced the County of Ossining with the Village of Ossining as a defendant. The Village filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Correction Officers A. Thomas, K. Edwards, and M. Banks had not answered or filed a motion, and the U.S. Marshals Service reported that it had been unable to serve them before the 90-day service period expired.
Rulings
The court construed Barnett’s October 21, 2024 letter as a request to extend the time for service and granted that request. It extended the time to serve the Individual Defendants to 90 days after the date of the order. Because Barnett had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to prepare the required service forms, reissue summonses for Correction Officers A. Thomas, K. Edwards, and M. Banks, and send the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. Barnett was reminded that he must request another extension if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, and that he must notify the court in writing if his address changes.
To the extent Barnett requested an immediate trial, the court denied that request and ordered that the action proceed in the ordinary course. The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Barnett and terminate the motion at Doc. 46.
Effect of the Order
This order concerns service of process and case administration. It does not decide the merits of Barnett’s underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.