Divine Fredericks v. A. Demschick; D. Infantino; R. Pitoniak; John Audu
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:25-cv-06846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Divine Fredericks v. A. Demschick, Judge Seibel ordered U.S. Marshals to serve defendants in Fredericks’s religious-exercise lawsuit.
Divine Fredericks, the four named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service are affected. The order requires the Clerk and Marshals Service to take steps to serve the defendants, while Fredericks must monitor the service deadline and report any address change.
What happened
Divine Fredericks v. A. Demschick; D. Infantino; R. Pitoniak; John Audu involves a lawsuit by Divine Fredericks, who is incarcerated and is representing himself. He alleges that the defendants violated his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion under a federal civil-rights law.
Because the court had allowed Fredericks to proceed without paying court fees in advance, it ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare service forms for each defendant. The U.S. Marshals Service must deliver the lawsuit papers to the defendants. The court also explained that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Fredericks requests more time.
Judge Cathy Seibel’s order dealt with serving the defendants, not whether Fredericks’s allegations are legally or factually correct. The court also directed Fredericks to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the case may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
The detailed version
- Divine Fredericks v. A. Demschick; D. Infantino; R. Pitoniak; John Audu · No. 7:25-cv-06846
- Cathy Seibel
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
Divine Fredericks, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is representing himself, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that A. Demschick, D. Infantino, R. Pitoniak, and John Audu violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. The opinion states that the court had previously granted Fredericks permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. It also notes that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee under the applicable statute.
Service of the lawsuit
Because Fredericks was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue a summons for each defendant, and give the Marshals Service the documents needed to make service. The opinion lists service addresses for each defendant at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
The court stated that service generally must occur within 90 days after a complaint is filed, but Fredericks could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses. The court therefore extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses issue. If the complaint is not served within that period, Fredericks should request an extension of time. The court also directed Fredericks to notify it in writing of any address change and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, complete the service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. It also directed the Clerk to mail Fredericks an information package. This order addressed service of process and did not decide the merits of Fredericks’s First Amendment allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.