Sullivan v. Banks

Background

Mark J. Sullivan, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action against the New York City Department of Education and Binong Xu. He alleges that the defendants denied him access to his child’s school records when she was a minor. The court had granted Sullivan permission to proceed without paying filing fees, which the opinion describes as proceeding in forma pauperis, or “IFP.”

Service Efforts

Because Sullivan was proceeding IFP, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court had directed service on Xu through the Marshals Service on April 16, 2025. The Marshals Service attempted service but could not complete it because the address Sullivan had provided appeared to be incorrect. The opinion states that no new or updated address had been provided. Sullivan then filed a Supplemental Complaint at Dkt. No. 40.

Court’s Order

To permit service on Xu through the Marshals Service, the court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, known as a USM-285 form, for Xu. The Clerk was also instructed to issue a summons and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service so it could serve Xu with the summons and a copy of the Supplemental Complaint at Dkt. No. 40. The order listed Xu’s service address as 42 Chestnut Tree Hill Road, Oxford, Connecticut 06478.

The court stated that if the Supplemental Complaint was not served within 90 days after the summons was issued, Sullivan should request an extension of time for service. Judge Lewis J. Liman’s order concerned the mechanics of service and did not resolve whether Sullivan’s allegations were legally valid.