Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 24, 2025

Etuk v. Bronxworks

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:24-cv-04953
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Etuk v. Bronxworks, Magistrate Judge Cave arranged service on named defendants and paused the City’s response deadline.

Who this affects

Akaniyene W. Etuk, the listed DHS and NYPD defendants, and the City of New York, whose deadline to respond was paused pending service.

What happened

In Etuk v. Bronxworks, Akaniyene W. Etuk had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Several DHS and NYPD officers, called the “Valentin Defendants,” had been identified but had not yet been served. The City said it did not expect problems representing those individuals, while noting that service had not occurred.

The court instructed the Clerk to prepare service forms with the officers’ addresses and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The deadline for serving the third amended complaint was extended to 90 days after summonses were issued. The City’s deadline to answer, challenge, or otherwise oppose the complaint was paused while service was pending.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave also directed the City to report by April 28, 2025, on the service status and possible representation of the officers. The order told Etuk to request more time if service was not completed and to notify the court of any address change. It did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Etuk v. Bronxworks · No. 1:24-cv-04953
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Mar. 24, 2025

Background

Akaniyene W. Etuk was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had identified several individuals as defendants under an earlier order, referred to here as the “Valentin Defendants,” but those individuals had not yet been served. The Corporation Counsel for the City of New York stated that the City did not anticipate issues with representing the individuals, while noting that service had not occurred.

The defendants listed for service were DHS Officers Raven Clemente, Amos Woods, and Dionne Buckett; NYPD Officers Joeche Ramirez, Jomeliza Lopez Capellan, and Shacun Malave; and former NYPD Officer Alex Bedolla-Benavente. The order provided service addresses for these defendants through the Department of Homeless Services and the New York City Police Department.

Court’s Action

Because Etuk had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the United States Marshals Service to carry out service. The Clerk was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return Form for the listed defendants and provide the Marshals with the documents needed for service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Etuk an information package and a copy of the order.

The court extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses were issued. If the third amended complaint was not served within that period, the order directed Etuk to request an extension. It also required him to notify the court in writing if his address changed.

Effect on the Case

The City’s deadline to answer, make a motion against, or otherwise oppose the third amended complaint was held in abeyance, meaning it was paused, until the Valentin Defendants were served. The City was ordered to file a letter by April 28, 2025, reporting on the status of service and providing updates about the City’s possible representation of those individuals. The order addressed service and scheduling; it did not resolve the merits of Etuk’s 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.