Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2025

Quick v. D'Agostino's Supermarket Franchise

Judge
Vargas
Docket
1:24-cv-09297
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Quick v. D’Agostino’s Supermarket Franchise, Judge Vargas ordered U.S. Marshals service of Quick’s complaint after approving his fee-waiver request.

Who this affects

Desmond Quick, D’Agostino Supermarkets, Inc., Russell Slick Watson, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Quick v. D’Agostino’s Supermarket Franchise concerns Desmond Quick’s lawsuit for damages against D’Agostino Supermarkets, Inc. and Russell Slick Watson. Quick is representing himself and is incarcerated. The court understood his complaint to raise federal and state-law claims.

The court had already allowed Quick to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and give the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendants could be served.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas also explained that Quick must ask for more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued and must notify the court if his address changes. The order directs service and does not decide whether Quick’s claims are valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Quick v. D'Agostino's Supermarket Franchise · No. 1:24-cv-09297
Judge
Vargas
Date
Jan. 19, 2025

Background

Desmond Quick filed the action while incarcerated and is representing himself. He seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court understood the complaint as also asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law.

The defendants are identified as “Dagostinos Supermarket Franchise,” which the court said appears to be D’Agostino Supermarkets, Inc., and Russell Slick Watson, identified as the manager of the D’Agostino’s store at 633 Columbus Avenue in New York, New York.

Prior Fee-Waiver Order

In an earlier order dated December 11, 2024, the court allowed Quick to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The opinion notes that incarcerated people still must pay the full filing fee over time, even when granted this permission.

Service Order

Because Quick was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court said he was entitled to assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for both defendants, complete a separate USM-285 service form for each, and provide the summonses, complaint, and other necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The court extended the service period so that the 90-day period begins after the summonses are issued. If the complaint is not served within that period, Quick should request an extension of time. The court also required Quick to notify it in writing of any address change and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas directed the Clerk of Court to mail Quick an information package and directed service on the defendants. This order addresses service of the lawsuit; it does not decide the merits of Quick’s federal or state-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.