Williams v. Police Officer Luis A. Segura
Shamark Williams v. Police Officer Luis A. Segura, P.O. Amandy Feliz, and P.O. Dario Albanludena
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-02936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Williams v. Segura, Judge Rochon denied reconsideration, allowing Williams’s claims against Feliz and Albanludena to proceed toward service.
The ruling keeps Shamark Williams’s claims against Amandy Feliz and Dario Albanludena eligible to proceed to service and possible further motions. It rejects Luis A. Segura’s request for reconsideration; the opinion also notes that earlier rulings dismissed specified claims against the City of New York and Osvaldo J. Garcia.
What happened
In Shamark Williams v. Police Officer Luis A. Segura, P.O. Amandy Feliz, and P.O. Dario Albanludena, Segura asked the court to revisit an earlier decision that allowed Williams to continue claims against Feliz and Albanludena, who had not yet been served. Williams, who was representing himself, opposed the request.
Segura argued that Williams had not worked diligently to serve the two officers, that continuing the case would unfairly prejudice them, and that Williams’s claims against them were legally insufficient. The court rejected those arguments. It found that Williams had made reasonable service efforts because the Marshals were responsible for serving him and the court had not directed service on Feliz and Albanludena. The court also found little prejudice and said that any arguments about whether Williams stated valid claims should be raised in a separate motion by those officers.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Segura’s motion for partial reconsideration. The court stated that the Marshals would serve Feliz and Albanludena under a separate order, and that they would have 30 days after service to tell the court whether they intended to file motions seeking to end the claims against them.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Police Officer Luis A. Segura · No. 1:23-cv-02936
- Rochon
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
This opinion concerns Defendant Luis A. Segura’s motion for partial reconsideration. In a prior related proceeding, the court ruled on a summary-judgment motion involving claims arising from Williams’s August 27, 2020 arrest. The court granted that motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing Williams’s excessive-force, malicious-prosecution, false-arrest, and Monell claims against the City of New York and Osvaldo J. Garcia. The court also allowed Williams to state whether he wanted to proceed with claims against Amandy Feliz and Dario Albanludena, who had not been served by the Marshals. Williams said that he wanted to proceed.
Segura’s Arguments
Segura asked the court to reconsider its decision permitting Williams to proceed against Feliz and Albanludena. He argued that Williams had not been diligent in serving them, that allowing the claims to continue would unfairly prejudice them because of the passage of time and possible loss of evidence, and that Williams had not stated a valid claim against them. Segura sought reconsideration based on alleged clear error or manifest injustice. Reconsideration is an extraordinary request asking a court to correct a clear mistake, account for new evidence, or respond to a change in controlling law.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected the service argument. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a court generally must dismiss an unserved defendant without prejudice or set a deadline for service when service is not completed within the required period, but the court must extend the deadline when the plaintiff shows good cause and may grant an extension even without good cause. The court found that Williams made reasonable efforts because his status allowed service by the Marshals, the court had not directed service on Feliz and Albanludena after they were added in the amended complaint, and Williams had previously requested additional time for service.
The court also found little prejudice to Feliz and Albanludena. It noted that they were employees of New York City and that the discovery and legal work already completed could be used in claims against them. The court said that resolving the claims against all defendants in one proceeding also supported allowing the case to continue. It further noted that the defendants had not moved to dismiss Feliz and Albanludena under the service rule or the rule for failure to state a claim.
Finally, the court declined to consider Segura’s argument that Williams’s claims against Feliz and Albanludena were legally insufficient. The court said that argument could have been raised earlier and was not a proper basis for reconsideration. It stated that arguments about whether the amended complaint stated a claim or showed the officers’ personal involvement should be addressed through a separate dispositive motion by Feliz and Albanludena.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the motion for partial reconsideration. The court directed that the Marshals serve Feliz and Albanludena by separate order. Within 30 days after service, those defendants must tell the court whether they intend to file dispositive motions. The opinion does not decide the ultimate merits of Williams’s claims against Feliz or Albanludena.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.