Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 9, 2025

Fabio Manuel Guzman Espinal v. VA Department of Veterans Affairs Bronx, NY

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-04762
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureTortPro Se
In one sentence

In Guzman Espinal v. VA, Judge Abrams dismissed claims against the VA, substituted the United States, and ordered service.

Who this affects

Fabio Manuel Guzman Espinal, the United States of America as the substituted defendant, and the VA entity that was dismissed as a defendant.

What happened

In Fabio Manuel Guzman Espinal v. VA Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Bronx, NY, Fabio Manuel Guzman Espinal alleged that a Department of Veterans Affairs employee inappropriately touched him. He represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which generally requires the United States—not the VA—to be the defendant. The court therefore dismissed the claims against the VA and directed the Clerk of Court to substitute the United States as the defendant.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the United States. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fabio Manuel Guzman Espinal v. VA Department of Veterans Affairs Bronx, NY · No. 1:25-cv-04762
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 9, 2025

Background

Fabio Manuel Guzman Espinal, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that his rights were violated when an employee of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs inappropriately touched him. He named “VA Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Bronx, NY” as the defendant.

The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal law governing certain tort claims against the United States.

Defendant substitution

The court held that the only proper defendant for a Federal Tort Claims Act claim is the United States of America. It dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against “VA Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Bronx, NY.” Because the complaint clearly intended to assert a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States, the court construed the complaint as asserting a claim against the United States and directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption by substituting the United States for the VA. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the United States may assert.

Service

Because Plaintiff was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service process form for service on the United States, mark it for service on the United States, issue a summons, and provide the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The court stated that if the complaint was not served within 90 days after the summons was issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time. Plaintiff was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court stated that it could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against “VA Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Bronx, NY” and directed the Clerk of Court to add the United States of America as a defendant. The court also directed the Clerk to issue the summons and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service. Finally, the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.