Jaime v. New York State Officers
- Sidney Stein
- 1:24-cv-00266
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jaime v. New York State Officers, Judge Stein directed the Clerk and Marshals to serve eight defendants in Jaime’s second amended complaint.
Luis Jaime, the eight named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Luis Jaime v. New York State Officers, et al., the court had previously granted Jaime’s application to proceed under a status called IFP, allowing the court and U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the defendants.
The court found that a required service form apparently had not been prepared. It directed the Clerk to prepare the forms, issue summonses, and give the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on eight named defendants. The court also said that Jaime should request more time if service was not completed within 90 days after the summonses were issued, and that he must notify the court of any address change.
Judge Gary Stein issued the order on January 6, 2025. The order concerns arranging service and does not decide the claims in Jaime’s second amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Jaime v. New York State Officers · No. 1:24-cv-00266
- Sidney Stein
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
The court had granted Luis Jaime’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning that the court and the U.S. Marshals Service would handle service of process on the defendants. The court cited the federal statute and rule authorizing this arrangement.
On October 3, 2024, the court had directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, known as a USM-285 form, for the defendants. Based on the docket, the court concluded that this apparently had not happened.
Order
The court again directed the Clerk to prepare USM-285 forms for Michael Desharnais, Steven Bilka, Matthew Maldonado, Christopher Chester, Christopher Roca, Pasquale Cugliandro, Michael McKee, and Tyron Patterson, using the address attached to the order. The Clerk was also directed to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve the defendants.
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued because Jaime was proceeding under IFP status. It stated that, if the second amended complaint was not served within that period, Jaime should request an extension of time. The order also required Jaime to notify the court if his address changed and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Effect of the Order
This is a procedural order concerning service of process. It does not address whether Jaime’s claims against the defendants are legally valid or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.