Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 26, 2025

Luciano v. Mendez

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:25-cv-06731
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Luciano v. Mendez, Judge Seibel ordered summonses and U.S. Marshals service after allowing Luciano to proceed without prepaying fees.

Who this affects

Gloria Luciano, the four police-officer defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Luciano v. Mendez, Gloria Luciano, representing herself, brought constitutional claims under federal civil-rights law based on an August 18, 2024 incident. The complaint may also include state-law claims.

Because Luciano was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court said the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service must help serve Police Officers Angel Mendez, Whelan, Gallagher, and Mahoney. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued.

Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to issue the summonses, prepare service forms, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide whether Luciano’s claims were valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Luciano v. Mendez · No. 7:25-cv-06731
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Aug. 26, 2025

Background

Gloria Luciano, who is representing herself, alleges that her constitutional rights were violated during an incident on August 18, 2024. She brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by government officials. The complaint may also be read to assert claims under state law.

The court had previously granted Luciano permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The defendants are Police Officer Angel Mendez (Badge #58), Police Officer Whelan (Badge #24), Police Officer Gallagher (Badge #25), and Police Officer Mahoney (Badge #40).

Service of Process

Because Luciano was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that she is entitled to assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the defendants. The Clerk of Court was directed to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and give the Marshals Service the documents needed to complete service.

The court explained that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Luciano should request an extension of time. The order also requires Luciano to notify the court in writing if her address changes and states that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.

Disposition and Effect

The court ordered the Clerk to mail Luciano an information package, issue summonses for the four defendants, complete the service forms with each defendant’s address, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. Luciano may also consent to receive case documents electronically instead of by regular mail.

This was an order concerning service of process and case administration. The court did not decide the merits of Luciano’s constitutional or possible state-law claims, and the opinion does not state that any claim was dismissed or finally resolved.

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.