Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 18, 2025

Carlisle v. Ramos

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:24-cv-09790
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Section 1983Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Carlisle v. Ramos, Judge Seibel ordered summonses and U.S. Marshals service for Carlisle’s civil-rights lawsuit after granting permission to proceed without prepaying fees.

Who this affects

Antwane Carlisle, the six named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order sets up service of the lawsuit and imposes address-notification and service-deadline requirements on Carlisle.

What happened

Carlisle v. Ramos is Antwane Carlisle’s lawsuit against P.O. Ramos, P.O. J. Vazquez, P.O. Rockwood, S.P.O. Constantini, the City of New Rochelle, and the County of Westchester. Carlisle, who was detained at the Westchester County Jail, brought the case without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute.

The court had previously allowed Carlisle to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendants could be served. The order gives Carlisle 90 days after the summonses are issued to complete service, and says he should ask for more time if service is not completed by then.

Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order of service and instructed the Clerk to mail Carlisle a copy of the order and an information package. The order also requires Carlisle to notify the court in writing if his address changes and says the court may dismiss the case if he does not do so; it does not decide whether his claims are valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carlisle v. Ramos · No. 7:24-cv-09790
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Feb. 18, 2025

Background

Antwane Carlisle, who was detained in the Westchester County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He named P.O. Ramos #0221, P.O. J. Vazquez #1848, P.O. Rockwood #0926, S.P.O. Constantini #0518, the City of New Rochelle, and the County of Westchester as defendants. The opinion does not describe the specific alleged rights violations.

By an order dated February 13, 2025, the court granted Carlisle permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The order notes that prisoners still must pay the full filing fee, even when granted that permission.

Service of the Defendants

Because Carlisle was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

The order extends the usual service deadline. Carlisle must have the defendants served within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, the order says Carlisle should request an extension of time. The order also requires Carlisle to notify the court in writing if his address changes and states that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order of service. The Clerk was directed to issue summonses for all six defendants, complete the service forms using the listed addresses, deliver the documents to the U.S. Marshals Service, and mail Carlisle a copy of the order with an information package. This order addresses service and case administration; it does not decide the merits of Carlisle’s civil-rights 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.