Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 23, 2025

Jules v. The City of New York

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:24-cv-10056
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jules v. The City of New York, Judge Woods ordered service through the Marshals Service after Jules received permission to proceed without prepaid fees.

Who this affects

Josephine M. Jules, the City of New York, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Jules v. The City of New York concerns Josephine M. Jules’s state-law claims against the City of New York, brought under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Jules is representing herself and had previously received permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

Because Jules is proceeding without prepaid fees, the court said the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service must help serve the City. The Clerk was ordered to issue a summons, complete the required service form, and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

Judge Gregory H. Woods also explained that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, and Jules should ask for more time if necessary. Jules must notify the court of any address change, or the case may be dismissed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jules v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-10056
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
July 23, 2025

Background

Josephine M. Jules, who is representing herself, sued the City of New York. The opinion says she alleges state-law claims and invokes the court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. In an earlier order dated January 15, 2025, the court granted Jules permission to proceed without paying fees upfront.

Service of the Complaint

Because Jules was permitted to proceed without prepaid fees, the court explained that she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court also explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued. It therefore extended the service period to 90 days after any summons is issued.

Order

The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for each defendant, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with the defendant’s address, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court directed the Clerk to mail Jules an information package. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summons is issued, Jules should request an extension of time. She must also notify the court in writing if her address changes; the court stated that it may dismiss the action if she fails to do so. This order does not state a decision on the underlying state-law 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.