Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 1, 2025

Van Arsdol v. Charles

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-05366
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro SePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Van Arsdol v. Charles, Judge Swain ordered a complaint and service address within 30 days, without ruling on injunctive relief.

Who this affects

Robin Van Arsdol must provide a service address for Andre Charles and file a complaint within 30 days or face dismissal without prejudice to refiling. The court has not yet ruled on Van Arsdol’s request for injunctive relief.

What happened

In Van Arsdol v. Charles, Robin Van Arsdol, representing himself, asked for an order stopping Andre Charles from allegedly infringing his copyright and harassing or threatening him. Van Arsdol had not filed a complaint or provided an address where Charles could be served.

The court directed Van Arsdol to provide a current service address for Charles and file a complaint within 30 days. The court also temporarily limited access to the electronic docket while Van Arsdol considers whether to request that the case proceed under seal. The court did not rule on the request for immediate injunctive relief.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that the action will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling if Van Arsdol does not comply or request more time. Judge Swain also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Van Arsdol v. Charles · No. 1:25-cv-05366
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 1, 2025

Background

Robin Van Arsdol, who resides in Florida and is proceeding without a lawyer, submitted by email a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against Andre Charles. Van Arsdol alleged that Charles infringed his copyright and engaged in harassing and threatening behavior. Van Arsdol alleged that Charles resides in New York City but did not provide a residential address or another address where Charles could be served.

The Clerk opened the motion as a new civil action. The court had previously granted Van Arsdol permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Van Arsdol submitted a motion and supporting declaration but had not filed a complaint.

Court’s directives

The court directed Van Arsdol, within 30 days, to provide a current address at which Charles may be served and to file a complaint. The court explained that although it assists a party proceeding without prepaying fees in carrying out service, the party must provide a current service address for each defendant. The court stated that Van Arsdol could request an extension of time if unable to comply by the deadline.

Van Arsdol suggested that he might want to proceed under seal, meaning with restricted public access to court filings, but had not filed a motion requesting that relief. The court explained that such a motion would need to allege facts showing that Van Arsdol’s interests in secrecy outweigh the public’s right to access court documents. The Clerk was directed to temporarily limit electronic docket access to case participants for 30 days or until the court rules on any motion to proceed under seal.

Ruling and effect

The court declined, at this time, to rule on Van Arsdol’s request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order because Van Arsdol had not provided an address where Charles could be served. The court directed Van Arsdol to provide the address and file the complaint within 30 days. If Van Arsdol fails to comply or seek an extension, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

Judge

The order was signed by Laura Taylor Swain, Chief United States District Judge.

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.