Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 15, 2025

Tripathy v. The City of New York

Full caption

Sanjay Tripathy v. The City of New York, Evelin Guittirez (Investigator), Manhattan DAs (NYCDAO), Mette Risdal (Complainant) in their individual and official capacities

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:25-cv-06465
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Sanjay Tripathy v. The City of New York, Judge Torres directed pro se plaintiff Tripathy about serving defendants and possible U.S. Marshals assistance.

Who this affects

Sanjay Tripathy, who is proceeding without a lawyer, must arrange service of the summons and complaint on the named defendants and comply with the stated deadlines.

What happened

In Sanjay Tripathy v. The City of New York, Sanjay Tripathy filed the case without a lawyer and paid the required filing and administrative fees. The order concerns how he must deliver the summons and complaint to the defendants.

The court told Tripathy that he is responsible for serving the defendants. He may ask the U.S. Marshals Service to help by submitting a separate request form for each defendant within 30 days, or he may ask the court to issue the summonses directly to him.

Judge Analisa Torres reminded Tripathy that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, or he must request more time. The court warned that the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if service is not completed or an extension is not requested, and directed Tripathy to notify the court if his address changes.

The detailed version

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

Case
Tripathy v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-06465
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Oct. 15, 2025

Background

Sanjay Tripathy paid the filing and administrative fee and is proceeding without a lawyer. Under the federal service rule, a plaintiff generally is responsible for delivering the summons and complaint to the defendants. The order addresses that service process; it does not state a ruling on the underlying claims.

Service Options

The court explained that Tripathy may request help from the U.S. Marshals Service. To do so, he must complete a USMS-285 request form for each defendant and return the forms to the court within 30 days of the order. Alternatively, he may notify the court within 30 days that he does not want to use the Marshals Service and request that the summonses be issued directly to him.

Deadlines and Warning

Regardless of which method he chooses, Tripathy must complete service within 90 days after the summonses are issued. The court reminded him that he must ask for an extension if service is not completed within that period. The court stated that, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b), it may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute if the complaint is not served within 90 days or Tripathy does not request an extension. He must also notify the court by letter filed on the docket if his address changes; the court stated that it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres issued the service instructions and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Tripathy. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied a motion, dismissed the action, or decided the merits of the claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.