Newman v. Park
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-06829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Newman v. Park: Judge Willis ordered summons and Marshals Service steps for service, without deciding Newman’s due-process claims.
Maurice Newman, who is representing himself, and the defendants Molly Park, Kirsis Ham, and the City of New York. The order primarily directs court personnel and the U.S. Marshals Service to facilitate service on Kirsis Ham.
What happened
In Newman v. Park, Maurice Newman, representing himself, alleges that Molly Park, Kirsis Ham, and the City of New York violated his due-process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Because Newman received that permission, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The order directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Kirsis Ham, complete the required service form using Ham’s address, and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis also explained that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, unless Newman requests more time. The order did not decide whether his due-process allegations are valid and warned that the case could be dismissed if he does not notify the court of an address change.
The detailed version
- Newman v. Park · No. 1:24-cv-06829
- John Cronan
- Jan. 10, 2025
Background
Maurice Newman is representing himself and alleges that Molly Park, Kirsis Ham, and the City of New York violated his rights to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court had previously allowed Newman to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying court fees in advance.
Service of Process
Because Newman 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 directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Kirsis Ham, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Ham’s address, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to carry out service.
The order states that service must be completed within 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Newman should ask for an extension of time. He must also notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Jennifer E. Willis entered an order directing the Clerk to take the service-related steps and to mail Newman an information package. The order did not resolve the merits of Newman’s due-process claims or determine whether any defendant violated his rights. It is a procedural order concerning service of process.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.