Montes v. Miller
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-04141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Montes v. Miller, Judge Seibel ordered the Marshals Service to serve six newly identified defendants in Montes’s civil-rights case.
Germaine Montes and the six defendants identified for service—Katelyn Richburg, J. Noeth, Sergeant Glore, Kelvin Salters, Lilieth Chambers, and Armand Pastilha—are directly affected. The Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service must carry out the service instructions.
What happened
Montes v. Miller concerns Germaine Montes’s civil-rights lawsuit against employees of Green Haven Correctional Facility and others. Montes is incarcerated, representing himself, and seeks damages, court orders, and a declaration about past conduct. The court had previously dismissed the claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
After information was provided identifying six previously unnamed defendants, Montes filed an amended complaint naming Katelyn Richburg, J. Noeth, Sergeant Glore, Kelvin Salters, Lilieth Chambers, and Armand Pastilha. Because Montes was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, he could use the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms with the six defendants’ addresses, and give the required papers to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Montes’s claims are legally valid. If service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Montes should ask for more time.
The detailed version
- Montes v. Miller · No. 7:24-cv-04141
- Cathy Seibel
- Mar. 26, 2025
Background
Germaine Montes, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration concerning past conduct. The defendants include Green Haven Superintendent Mark Miller and current or former Green Haven staff members. The court previously dismissed the claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
The court earlier directed the New York State Attorney General’s Office to help identify defendants who were referred to in the complaint by unidentified names. Information from the Attorney General’s Office and Montes led to the identification of Katelyn Richburg, J. Noeth, Sergeant Glore, Kelvin Salters, Lilieth Chambers, and Armand Pastilha. Montes filed an amended complaint naming those defendants on March 24, 2025.
Service of the Amended Complaint
Because Montes had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Service is the formal delivery of the lawsuit and related papers to a defendant.
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Richburg, Noeth, Glore, Salters, Chambers, and Pastilha. The Clerk was also instructed to complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms with each defendant’s address and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.
The court extended the service period so that the 90-day period would begin when the summonses issue. If the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after that date, Montes should request an extension of time. The court also reminded Montes that he must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for the six identified defendants and to provide the service materials to the U.S. Marshals Service. This order addressed the mechanics of serving the amended complaint; it did not decide the merits of Montes’s § 1983 claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.