Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 4, 2025

Thomas v. City of New York

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:24-cv-02534
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeSection 1983
In one sentence

In Thomas v. City of New York, Judge Ricardo ordered service of the lawsuit on Dyshawn Pitt through the Marshals Service and extended the service deadline.

Who this affects

Shawn Randall Thomas and Defendant Dyshawn Pitt; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take steps to complete service.

What happened

In Thomas v. City of New York, Shawn Randall Thomas, who is representing himself and has permission to proceed without paying filing fees, brought claims under federal civil-rights law and state law. He alleges false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, unlawful conditions while in police custody, involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Defendant Dyshawn Pitt. The court also extended the time for service. If Pitt is not served within 30 days after the order, Thomas should ask for another extension.

Judge Henry J. Ricardo issued the order on February 4, 2025. The order addressed service of the lawsuit and did not decide whether Thomas’s claims were legally valid or whether he would prevail.

The detailed version

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

Case
Thomas v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-02534
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Feb. 4, 2025

Background

Shawn Randall Thomas is proceeding without a lawyer and has been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He filed the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state or local officials, and under state law. The opinion says he asserts claims for false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, unlawful conditions of confinement while in police custody, involuntary hospitalization for psychiatric evaluation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Service Order

Because Thomas was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Defendant Dyshawn Pitt, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Pitt.

The court extended the time to serve Pitt. The opinion states that if the complaint is not served within 30 days after the order, Thomas should request an extension of time for service. It identifies Pitt as Shield No. 02319, assigned to the 1st Precinct, and provides a New York, New York address for service.

Effect of the Order

This was an order about serving a defendant, not a decision on the merits of Thomas’s claims. The court did not determine whether the alleged arrest, prosecution, custody conditions, hospitalization, or emotional distress violated the law. The Clerk was also directed to mail a copy of the order to Thomas.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.