Recant v. Day
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-04117
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Recant v. Day, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky gave Robin Recant a final September 2 deadline to seek a filing-fee waiver, serve defendants, or seek more time.
Robin Recant, who is proceeding without a lawyer, and the 72 defendants named in her complaint, none of whom had been served as of the order.
What happened
In Recant v. Day, Robin Recant filed a lawsuit without a lawyer against 72 defendants, alleging several federal constitutional violations. More than a year after filing, she had not requested summonses or served any defendant.
The court had previously recommended dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, but withdrew that recommendation after Recant explained that financial problems prevented her from paying for service. She then renewed her application to proceed without paying the filing fee, but did not provide the information and proof the court requested about her income and expenses.
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky gave Recant one final deadline—September 2, 2025—to support her filing-fee application, serve the defendants, or request a reasonable extension. The order did not dismiss the case; it stated that the judge expected to recommend dismissal if Recant missed the deadline.
The detailed version
- Recant v. Day · No. 1:24-cv-04117
- Tarnofsky
- Aug. 5, 2025
Background
Robin Recant filed a complaint without a lawyer on May 24, 2024. The complaint asserted numerous claims, including alleged violations of federal constitutional rights, and named 72 defendants. As of August 5, 2025, no defendant had been served, and Recant had not requested that summonses be issued.
On December 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky issued a report and recommendation asking District Judge Jennifer H. Rearden to dismiss the case without prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b) for failure to prosecute. After Recant submitted letters, the court held an in-person conference on March 27, 2025. Recant explained that she wanted assistance from the United States Marshals Service with service and that her financial circumstances had changed. The court explained that this assistance is available only to plaintiffs allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court withdrew the report and recommendation and allowed Recant to renew her application.
Filing-fee application
Recant renewed her application on April 14, 2025. She reported that she or someone living at the same residence had received more than $200 during the previous 12 months from sources including gifts or inheritances, but did not identify the sources, amounts, or expected future payments. On April 23, 2025, the court required her to provide additional information because it was not persuaded that she was unable to pay.
Recant filed an amended application on May 9, 2025. The court found that some income amounts differed from those in the earlier application and ordered her to explain the discrepancies and provide proof of her income and costs. She did not provide those materials by the deadline.
Order
The court extended the deadline one final time, retroactively, until September 2, 2025. By that date, Recant must do one of three things: file the materials supporting her application to proceed without paying the filing fee; serve the defendants; or request a reasonable extension of time to serve them.
The order did not dismiss the case or decide the merits of Recant's claims. Instead, it warned that if she failed to meet the September 2 deadline, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky expected to recommend that Judge Rearden dismiss the case under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff does not move the case forward or comply with court orders, including when the court acts without a defendant's motion.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses service, the filing-fee application, and possible dismissal for failure to prosecute without deciding whether Recant's underlying claims are valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.