Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 7, 2024

Washington v. Martuscello III

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:24-cv-07630
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureCivil RightsPro Se
In one sentence

In Washington v. Martuscello III, Judge Roman ordered summonses and U.S. Marshals Service delivery for Washington’s case alleging First Amendment and religious-land-use violations.

Who this affects

Omar Washington, the five named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Omar Washington, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and is representing himself, sued five defendants under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The court had already allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Because Washington received that permission, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed.

Judge Nelson S. Roman ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms with each defendant’s address, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Washington’s allegations are legally valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Washington v. Martuscello III · No. 7:24-cv-07630
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Nov. 7, 2024

Background

Omar Washington, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Commissioner Daniel Martuscello III, Lieutenant Clarence Fisher, Sergeant Maribel Lopez, Sergeant Latesha Bell, and Officer Kayla White violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

The court had granted Washington permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. That permission does not eliminate a prisoner’s obligation to pay the filing fee over time under the applicable statute.

Service of process

Because Washington 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 court stated that Washington could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued.

The court therefore extended the usual service deadline. The complaint must be served within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Washington should request more time. He must also notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for each defendant, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the listed service addresses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Washington an information package.

This order concerns service of the lawsuit. It does not decide the merits of Washington’s First Amendment or religious-land-use claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.