Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2025

Charles v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:25-cv-00702
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Charles v. T-Mobile, Judge Failla ordered U.S. Marshals service for Charles’s lawsuit after granting him permission to proceed without fees.

Who this affects

Nicolas A.N. Charles, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Assurance Wireless; the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take steps to serve the defendants.

What happened

Charles v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. concerns Nicolas A.N. Charles’s allegation that T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Assurance Wireless disconnected his Lifeline phone service without cause. Charles is representing himself and had already been allowed to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for both defendants, prepare the required service forms, and send the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service. The opinion states that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Charles requests more time.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide whether the phone-service allegations were valid. The order addressed only how the defendants would be served and directed that an information package and the order be mailed to Charles.

The detailed version

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

Case
Charles v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00702
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Apr. 8, 2025

Background

Nicolas A.N. Charles, who is representing himself, sued T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Assurance Wireless. He alleges that the defendants disconnected his Lifeline phone service without cause. In an order dated March 25, 2025, the court granted Charles permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Court’s action

Because Charles was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he may 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 a summons for each defendant, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

The court stated that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Charles should request an extension of time. The court also directed Charles to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition and scope

Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, prepare the service forms, and provide the documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also directed that an information package and the order be mailed to Charles. This order concerns service and case administration; it does not decide whether Charles’s allegations against either defendant are legally valid.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.